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]

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/