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: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:44:14 -0700 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 Hello, Sasha. On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 08/03/2012 11:30 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > The function definition itself is just a macro, for example: > > #define MM_SLOTS_HASH_CMP(mm_slot, obj) ((mm_slot)->mm == (obj)) It seems like it would make things more difficult to follow and error-prone. I'd definitely prefer just using functions. > As an alternative, what do you think about simplifying that to be > just a 'cond' instead of a function? Something like: > > hash_get(&mm_slots_hash, mm, struct mm_slot, hash, mm); > > In that case, the last param ("mm") will get unrolled to a condition like this: > > if ((obj)->mm == key) > > Which will be simple and easy for the user. It seems a bit too magical(tm) to me. ;) > The only reason I want to keep this interface is that most cases > I've stumbled so far were easy short comparisons of a struct member > with the key, and I don't want to make them more complex than they > need to be. I probably will switch hash_get() to use > hash_for_each_possible() as well, which will cut down on how > hash_get() is a separate case. I can understand that but I think the benefit we're talking about is a bit too miniscule to matter and to have two different interfaces. What do others think? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists