On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:58:14AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:53:19PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > The argument about hash_init being useful to add magic values in the > > future only works for the cases where a hash table is declared with > > DECLARE_HASHTABLE(). It's completely pointless with DEFINE_HASHTABLE(), > > because we could initialize any debugging variables from within > > DEFINE_HASHTABLE(). > > You can do that with [0 .. HASH_SIZE - 1] initializer. And in general, let's please try not to do optimizations which are pointless. Just stick to the usual semantics. You have an abstract data structure - invoke the initializer before using it. Sure, optimize it if it shows up somewhere. And here, if we do the initializers properly, it shouldn't cause any more actual overhead - ie. DEFINE_HASHTABLE() will basicallly boil down to all zero assignments and the compiler will put the whole thing in .bss anyway. 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>