On 08/01/2012 10:24 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:06:50PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:

quoted

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.

I don't know.  Maybe you can create an anonymous outer struct / union
and play symbol trick to alias hash_table to its member.  If it is
gimped either way, I'm not sure whether it's really worthwhile to
create the abstraction.  It's not like we're saving a lot of
complexity.

I must be missing something here, but how would you avoid it?

How would your DEFINE_HASHTABLE look like if we got for the simple 'struct hash_table' approach?

Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>