[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120802093536.GA23089@leaf>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 02:35:36 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
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 11:27:49AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On 08/01/2012 08:21 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:52PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >> If we switch to using functions, we could no longer hide it anywhere
> > >> (we'd need to either turn the buckets into a struct, or have the
> > >> user pass it around to all functions).
> > >
> > > Create an outer struct hash_table which remembers the size?
> >
> > Possible. I just wanted to avoid creating new structs where they're not really required.
> >
> > Do you think it's worth it for eliminating those two macros?
>
> What if someone wants to allocate hashtable dynamically which isn't
> too unlikely?
In particular, once this goes in, I'd like to add RCU-based hash
resizing to it, which will require wrapping the hash table in a struct
that also contains the size. So, please do consider having such a
struct rather than relying on static array sizes.
- Josh Triplett
--
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