On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 22:33, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > The linked list implementation is generic, and it is
> > not kernel-oriented as you claimed.
>
> It certainly is, as it requires the list_head to
> be the part of the data. Please correct me if i am
> wrong.
>
> In kernel:
>
> typedef struct list_head {
> struct list_head *next, *prev;
> } list_t;
>
> In glib:
>
> struct GList
> {
> gpointer data;
> GList *next;
> GList *prev;
> };
Basically this wastes 4 bytes (or whatever gpointer is in size and
aligned) per list-element of physical (read: not swappable) space.
While it is "tuned" for a kernel, is is also generic enough that many
other structs use it (and the related macros/inline functions/...).
> > Is there a need for hashtables?
>
> Yes of course. I need it and i know that others
> may need it as well.
Propose one (at best also used by an existing driver/module/what-ever).
Or even better extract one existing and make a (more) generic version
out of it.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
