[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <501C458E.7050000@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:41:34 +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:
> 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.
I forgot to comment on that one, sorry.
If we put hash entries after struct hash_table we don't take the bits field size into account, or did I miss something?
--
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