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 23:41:34 +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