* Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > This hashtable implementation is using hlist buckets to provide a simple > hashtable to prevent it from getting reimplemented all over the kernel. > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > include/linux/hashtable.h | 284 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [...] Hi Sasha, There are still a few API naming nits that I'd like to discuss: > + > +/** > + * hash_for_each_size - iterate over a hashtable > + * @name: hashtable to iterate > + * @bits: bit count of hashing function of the hashtable > + * @bkt: integer to use as bucket loop cursor > + * @node: the &struct list_head to use as a loop cursor for each bucket > + * @obj: the type * to use as a loop cursor for each bucket > + * @member: the name of the hlist_node within the struct > + */ > +#define hash_for_each_size(name, bits, bkt, node, obj, member) \ What is the meaning of "for each size" ? By looking at the implementation, I see that it takes an extra "bits" argument to specify the key width. But in the other patches of this patchset, I cannot find a single user of the "*_size" API. If you do not typically expect users to specify this parameter by hand (thanks to use of HASH_BITS(name) in for_each functions that do not take the bits parameter), I would recommend to only expose hash_for_each() and similar defines, but not the *_size variants. So I recommend merging hash_for_each_size into hash_for_each (and doing similarly for other *_size variants). On the plus side, it will cut down the number of for_each macros from 12 down to 6, which is more reasonable. > + for (bkt = 0; bkt < HASH_SIZE(bits); bkt++) \ > + hlist_for_each_entry(obj, node, &name[bkt], member) > + > +/** > + * hash_for_each - iterate over a hashtable > + * @name: hashtable to iterate > + * @bkt: integer to use as bucket loop cursor > + * @node: the &struct list_head to use as a loop cursor for each bucket > + * @obj: the type * to use as a loop cursor for each bucket > + * @member: the name of the hlist_node within the struct > + */ > +#define hash_for_each(name, bkt, node, obj, member) \ > + hash_for_each_size(name, HASH_BITS(name), bkt, node, obj, member) > + [...] > +/** > + * 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. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
