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, 3 Aug 2012 14:30:17 -0700 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> 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 Hello, On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:19:57PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > Is this supposed to be embedded in struct definition? If so, the name > > is rather misleading as DEFINE_* is supposed to define and initialize > > stand-alone constructs. Also, for struct members, simply putting hash > > entries after struct hash_table should work. > > It would work, but I didn't want to just put them in the union since > I feel it's safer to keep them in a separate struct so they won't be > used by mistake, Just use ugly enough pre/postfixes. If the user still accesses that, it's the user's fault. > >> +static void hash_init(struct hash_table *ht, size_t bits) > >> +{ > >> + size_t i; > > > > I would prefer int here but no biggie. > > Just wondering, is there a particular reason behind it? It isn't a size and using unsigned when signed suffices seems to cause more headache than helps anything usually due to lack of values to use for exceptional conditions (usually -errno or -1). > > As opposed to using hash_for_each_possible(), how much difference does > > this make? Is it really worthwhile? > > Most of the places I've switched to using this hashtable so far (4 > out of 6) are using hash_get(). I think that the code looks cleaner > when you an just provide a comparison function instead of > implementing the iteration itself. > > 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. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists