[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <501C4E92.1070801@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:20:02 +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 11:48 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:41:34PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> 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?
>
> So, if you do the following,
>
> struct {
> struct {
> int i;
> long ar[];
> } B;
> long __ar_storage[32];
> } A;
struct A should have been an union, right?
> It should always be safe to dereference A.B.ar[31]. I'm not sure
> whether this is something guaranteed by C tho. Maybe compilers are
> allowed to put members in reverse order but I think we already depend
> on the above.
why is accessing A.B.ar[31] safe?
__ar_storage is only 32*sizeof(long) bytes long, while struct B would need to be 32*sizeof(long) + sizeof(int) bytes long so that A.B.ar[31] access would be safe.
> Thanks.
>
--
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