2015-07-08 14:21, Bruce Richardson:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 12:27:34PM +0100, Pablo de Lara wrote:
> > rte_hash structure should not be a public structure,
> > and therefore it should be moved to the C file and be declared
> > as internal. rte_hash_hash implementation is also moved
> > to the C f
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:12:23AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Matthew. Can you suggest a function prototype for such
> a walk operation that would make it useful for you. While we can keep the
> hash structure public, I'd prefer if we could avoid it, as it makes making
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 09:57:03AM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:21:42PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > Irrespective of whether or not we change the underlying hash table
> > implementation
> > this looks a good change to me. The rte_hash structure should not be used
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 12:27:34PM +0100, Pablo de Lara wrote:
> rte_hash structure should not be a public structure,
> and therefore it should be moved to the C file and be declared
> as internal. rte_hash_hash implementation is also moved
> to the C file, as it uses the structure.
>
> This patch
rte_hash structure should not be a public structure,
and therefore it should be moved to the C file and be declared
as internal. rte_hash_hash implementation is also moved
to the C file, as it uses the structure.
This patch also removes part of a unit test that was checking
a field of the structur
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:21:42PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Irrespective of whether or not we change the underlying hash table
> implementation
> this looks a good change to me. The rte_hash structure should not be used
> directly
> by any applications - the APIs all take pointers to the
6 matches
Mail list logo
