[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121029191256.GE4066@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:12:56 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
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,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de, ccaulfie@...hat.com,
teigland@...hat.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
bfields@...ldses.org, fweisbec@...il.com, jesse@...ira.com,
venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com, ejt@...hat.com,
snitzer@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
dev@...nvswitch.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com, lw@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/16] tracepoint: use new hashtable implementation
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 03:09:36PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> The other thing is whether hash_init() should be called for hashtables
> that were created with DEFINE_HASHTABLE(). That point was raised by
> Neil Brown last time this series went around, and it seems that no one
> objected to the point that it should be consistent across the code.
Hmmm? If something is DEFINE_XXX()'d, you definitely shouldn't be
calling XXX_init() on it. That's how it is with most other abstract
data types and you need *VERY* strong rationale to deviate from that.
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