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, 03 Aug 2012 23:36:49 +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, 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 On 08/03/2012 11:30 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> I think hash_for_for_each_possible() is useful if the comparison >> > condition is more complex than a simple comparison of one of the >> > object members with the key - there's no need to force it on all the >> > users. > I don't know. What's the difference? In terms of LOC, it might even > not save any thanks to the extra function definition, right? I don't > think it's saving enough complexity to justify a separate rather > unusual interface. The function definition itself is just a macro, for example: #define MM_SLOTS_HASH_CMP(mm_slot, obj) ((mm_slot)->mm == (obj)) 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. 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. -- 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