Hello, Sasha.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:05:17PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> +#define HASH_INIT(name) \
> +({ \
> + int __i; \
> + for (__i = 0 ; __i < HASH_SIZE(name) ; __i++) \
> + INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&name[__i]); \
> +})
Why use macro?
> +#define HASH_ADD(name, obj, key) \
> + hlist_add_head(obj, &name[ \
> + hash_long((unsigned long)key, HASH_BITS(name))]);
Ditto.
> +#define HASH_GET(name, key, type, member, cmp_fn) \
> +({ \
> + struct hlist_node *__node; \
> + typeof(key) __key = key; \
> + type *__obj = NULL; \
> + hlist_for_each_entry(__obj, __node, &name[ \
> + hash_long((unsigned long) __key, \
> + HASH_BITS(name))], member) \
> + if (cmp_fn(__obj, __key)) \
> + break; \
> + __obj; \
> +})
Wouldn't it be simpler to have something like the following
hash_for_each_possible_match(pos, hash, key)
and let the caller handle the actual comparison? Callbacks often are
painful to use and I don't think the above dancing buys much.
> +#define HASH_DEL(obj, member) \
> + hlist_del(&obj->member)
@obj is struct hlist_node in HASH_ADD and the containing type here?
Most in-kernel generic data containers implement just the container
itself and let the caller handle the conversions between container
node and the containing object. I think it would better not to
deviate from that.
> +#define HASH_FOR_EACH(bkt, node, name, obj, member) \
> + for (bkt = 0; bkt < HASH_SIZE(name); bkt++) \
> + hlist_for_each_entry(obj, node, &name[i], member)
Why in caps? Most for_each macros are in lower case.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>