Re: [PATCH RFC 01/40] util: hash: Add possibility to use simpler data free function in virHash

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/18/19 11:10 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
Introduce a new type virHashDataFreeSimple which has only a void * as
argument for cases when knowing the name of the entry when freeing the
hash entry is not required.

Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  src/conf/domain_addr.c |  4 ++--
  src/util/vircgroup.c   |  2 +-
  src/util/virhash.c     | 15 ++++++++++++++-
  src/util/virhash.h     | 10 ++++++++++
  4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


This shows there were not many callers to virHashCreateFull.  (Thankfully)


@@ -133,6 +134,7 @@ virHashComputeKey(const virHashTable *table, const void *name)
   */
  virHashTablePtr virHashCreateFull(ssize_t size,
                                    virHashDataFree dataFree,
+                                  virHashDataFreeSimple dataFreeSimple,

Is there any way to create a union argument which takes either a dataFree or dataFreeSimple function, rather than having to have two separate parameters? But as there are not many callers, this does not hurt too much.

                                    virHashKeyCode keyCode,
                                    virHashKeyEqual keyEqual,
                                    virHashKeyCopy keyCopy,
@@ -149,7 +151,10 @@ virHashTablePtr virHashCreateFull(ssize_t size,
      table->seed = virRandomBits(32);
      table->size = size;
      table->nbElems = 0;
-    table->dataFree = dataFree;
+    if (dataFree)
+        table->dataFree = dataFree;
+    else
+        table->dataFreeSimple = dataFreeSimple;

I guess I'll need to see later in the series why we need this instead of being able to use virHashValueFree(). Are there really that many places where it is just too much boilerplate to add a simple one-liner forwarding function that passes the virHashDataFree signature with two parameters and calls the real freeing function with one parameter?

Should this function fail if the user passes non-NULL pointers for both dataFree and dataFreeSimple, rather than blindly favoring only dataFree?

But code-wise, the patch is correct. So if its use later in the series proves useful, then consider this as an ACK.

--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list



[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

  Powered by Linux