[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5019B0B4.1090102@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:41:56 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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 08/01/2012 10:24 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.
I must be missing something here, but how would you avoid it?
How would your DEFINE_HASHTABLE look like if we got for the simple 'struct hash_table' approach?
> Thanks.
>
--
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