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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
