[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120906145545.GA17332@leaf>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:55:46 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...e.hu, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, ericvh@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de, ccaulfie@...hat.com,
teigland@...hat.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
bfields@...ldses.org, fweisbec@...il.com, jesse@...ira.com,
venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com, ejt@...hat.com,
snitzer@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
dev@...nvswitch.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com, lw@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:53:58PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 07:01 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> #define do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec) \
> >> > for (pg = ftrace_pages_start, rec = &pg->records[pg->index]; \
> >> > pg && rec == &pg->records[pg->index]; \
> >> > pg = pg->next) \
> >> > for (rec = pg->records; rec < &pg->records[pg->index]; rec++)
> > Maybe in some cases there might be ways to combine the two loops into
> > one ? I'm not seeing exactly how to do it for this one, but it should
> > not be impossible. If the inner loop condition can be moved to the outer
> > loop, and if we use (blah ? loop1_conf : loop2_cond) to test for
> > different conditions depending on the context, and do the same for the
> > 3rd argument of the for() loop. The details elude me for now though, so
> > maybe it's complete non-sense ;)
> >
> > It might not be that useful for do_for_each_ftrace_rec, but if we can do
> > it for the hash table iterator, it might be worth it.
>
> So I think that for the hash iterator it might actually be simpler.
>
> My solution to making 'break' work in the iterator is:
>
> for (bkt = 0, node = NULL; bkt < HASH_SIZE(name) && node == NULL; bkt++)
> hlist_for_each_entry(obj, node, &name[bkt], member)
>
> We initialize our node loop cursor with NULL in the external loop, and the
> external loop will have a new condition to loop while that cursor is NULL.
>
> My logic is that we can only 'break' when we are iterating over an object in the
> internal loop. If we're iterating over an object in that loop then 'node != NULL'.
>
> This way, if we broke from within the internal loop, the external loop will see
> node as not NULL, and so it will stop looping itself. On the other hand, if the
> internal loop has actually ended, then node will be NULL, and the outer loop
> will keep running.
>
> Is there anything I've missed?
Looks reasonable. However, it would break (or rather, not break) on
code like this:
hash_for_each_entry(...) {
if (...) {
foo(node);
node = NULL;
break;
}
}
Hiding the double loop still seems error-prone.
- 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