linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/4] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120801202432.GE15477@google.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:24:32 -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
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:06:50PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Using a struct makes the dynamic case much easier, but it complicates the static case.
> 
> Previously we could create the buckets statically.
> 
> Consider this struct:
> 
> struct hash_table {
> 	u32 bits;
> 	struct hlist_head buckets[];
> };
> 
> We can't make any code that wraps this to make it work properly
> statically allocated nice enough to be acceptable.

I don't know.  Maybe you can create an anonymous outer struct / union
and play symbol trick to alias hash_table to its member.  If it is
gimped either way, I'm not sure whether it's really worthwhile to
create the abstraction.  It's not like we're saving a lot of
complexity.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/