| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 02:03:14 +0200 From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, davem@...emloft.net, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...e.hu, ebiederm@...ssion.com, aarcange@...hat.com, ericvh@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable Hi Linus, On 08/04/2012 01:47 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Or maybe it's just a gcc bug. I do think this all is way hackier than > Sasha's original simple code that didn't need these kinds of games, > and didn't need a size member at all. > > I really think all the extra complexity and overhead is just *bad*. > The first simple version was much nicer and likely generated better > code too. The problem with that code was that it doesn't work with dynamically allocated hashtables, or hashtables that grow/shrink. The alternative to going down this path, is going back to the old code and saying that it only works for the simple case, and if you're interested in something more complex it should have it's own different implementation. Does it make sense? We'll keep the simple & common case simple, and let anyone who needs something more complex than this write it as an extension? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists