Hello, Sasha.
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 08/03/2012 11:30 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The function definition itself is just a macro, for example:
>
> #define MM_SLOTS_HASH_CMP(mm_slot, obj) ((mm_slot)->mm == (obj))
It seems like it would make things more difficult to follow and
error-prone. I'd definitely prefer just using functions.
> As an alternative, what do you think about simplifying that to be
> just a 'cond' instead of a function? Something like:
>
> hash_get(&mm_slots_hash, mm, struct mm_slot, hash, mm);
>
> In that case, the last param ("mm") will get unrolled to a condition like this:
>
> if ((obj)->mm == key)
>
> Which will be simple and easy for the user.
It seems a bit too magical(tm) to me. ;)
> The only reason I want to keep this interface is that most cases
> I've stumbled so far were easy short comparisons of a struct member
> with the key, and I don't want to make them more complex than they
> need to be. I probably will switch hash_get() to use
> hash_for_each_possible() as well, which will cut down on how
> hash_get() is a separate case.
I can understand that but I think the benefit we're talking about is a
bit too miniscule to matter and to have two different interfaces.
What do others think?
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>