[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKBUcnA4b8HaV3-20C8QXXgFXW4ZDfOc6SvYCFsA3mtdyEd89Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:08:39 -0300
From: Matthias Diener <matthias.diener@...ener.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
Sasha Levin (levinsasha928 <at> gmail.com) wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
><mathieu.desnoyers <at> efficios.com> wrote:
>> * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928 <at> gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
>>> +#define hash_init(hashtable) \
>>> +({ \
>>> + int __i; \
>>> + \
>>> + for (__i = 0; __i < HASH_BITS(hashtable); __i++) \
>>
>> I think this fails to initialize the whole table. You'd need
>>
>> HASH_BITS -> HASH_SIZE
>
>Right.
>
>Unfortunately it's pretty hard catching something like this :/
>
>> Which brings the following question: how did you test this code ? It
>> would be nice to have a small test module along with this patchset that
>> stress-tests this simple hash table in various configurations (on stack,
>> in data, etc).
>
>I do two things:
>
> - A small userspace test (since this header works just fine from
>userspace as well).
It would be interesting to run some experiments with this hashtable in
userspace.
Could you post the test code here?
Thanks,
Matthias
--
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