On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 04:41:57PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 15:32:31 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 04:26:49PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 15:17:31 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 04:09:54PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > > [...] > > > > Currently there aren't any collisions which would cause problems, but I > > > have one on my private branch. > > > > > > Given that this change is rather simple I figured we could just stop > > > inverting them. > > > > Ok, that does make a little more sense, though generally my view would > > be that if we're doing something that is order sensitive like XML > > parsing & formatting, then we shouldn't be using a hash table to > > represent the data - at least not as the primary record. > > > > Which bit of code is using the hash in this case ? Is it something > > purely inside the test suite, or in the real XML handling code ? > > I'm adding some private data for blockjobs which are formatted into the > status XML. I'm storing them in a hash table as the order isn't really > important here and the user should never see this. > > I was just bothered by the fact that I'd need to have an output file (or > change the name of the blockjob) and figured that the insertion into the > hash table is very simple and does not really matter how we do it. ok, that makes more sense now, thanks for explaining. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
