On 08/19/2012 04:16 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >> * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > [...] >>> +/** >>> + * hash_for_each_possible - iterate over all possible objects for a given key >>> + * @name: hashtable to iterate >>> + * @obj: the type * to use as a loop cursor for each bucket >>> + * @bits: bit count of hashing function of the hashtable >>> + * @node: the &struct list_head to use as a loop cursor for each bucket >>> + * @member: the name of the hlist_node within the struct >>> + * @key: the key of the objects to iterate over >>> + */ >>> +#define hash_for_each_possible_size(name, obj, bits, node, member, key) \ >>> + hlist_for_each_entry(obj, node, &name[hash_min(key, bits)], member) >> >> Second point: "for_each_possible" does not express the iteration scope. >> Citing WordNet: "possible adj 1: capable of happening or existing;" -- >> which has nothing to do with iteration on duplicate keys within a hash >> table. >> >> I would recommend to rename "possible" to "duplicate", e.g.: >> >> hash_for_each_duplicate() >> >> which clearly says what is the scope of this iteration: duplicate keys. > > OK, about this part: I now see that you iterate over all objects within > the same hash chain. I guess the description "iterate over all possible > objects for a given key" is misleading: it's not all objects with a > given key, but rather all objects hashing to the same bucket. > > I understand that you don't want to build knowledge of the key > comparison function in the iterator (which makes sense for a simple hash > table). > > By the way, the comment "@obj: the type * to use as a loop cursor for > each bucket" is also misleading: it's a loop cursor for each entry, > since you iterate on all nodes within single bucket. Same for "@node: > the &struct list_head to use as a loop cursor for each bucket". > > So with these documentation changes applied, hash_for_each_possible > starts to make more sense, because it refers to entries that can > _possibly_ be a match (or not). Other options would be > hash_chain_for_each() or hash_bucket_for_each(). I'd rather avoid starting to use chain/bucket since they're not used anywhere else (I've tried keeping internal hashing/bucketing opaque to the user). Otherwise makes sense, I'll improve the documentation as suggested. Thanks! > Thanks, > > Mathieu > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
