On 08/01/2012 08:27 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 08/01/2012 08:21 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:52PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> If we switch to using functions, we could no longer hide it anywhere
>>>> (we'd need to either turn the buckets into a struct, or have the
>>>> user pass it around to all functions).
>>>
>>> Create an outer struct hash_table which remembers the size?
>>
>> Possible. I just wanted to avoid creating new structs where they're not really required.
>>
>> Do you think it's worth it for eliminating those two macros?
>
> What if someone wants to allocate hashtable dynamically which isn't
> too unlikely? I think it's best to stay away from macro tricks as
> much as possible although I gotta admit I fall into the macro trap
> more often than I would like.
Using a struct makes the dynamic case much easier, but it complicates the static case.
Previously we could create the buckets statically.
Consider this struct:
struct hash_table {
u32 bits;
struct hlist_head buckets[];
};
We can't make any code that wraps this to make it work properly statically allocated nice enough to be acceptable.
What if when creating the buckets, we actually allocate bits+1 buckets, and use the last bucket not as a bucket but as the bitcount? It looks like a hack but I think it's much nicer than the previous.
--
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>