On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:27:49AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:

quoted

On 08/01/2012 08:21 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:52PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:

quoted

If we switch to using functions, we could no longer hide it anywhere
(we'd need to either turn the buckets into a struct, or have the
user pass it around to all functions).

Create an outer struct hash_table which remembers the size?

Possible. I just wanted to avoid creating new structs where they're not really required.

Do you think it's worth it for eliminating those two macros?

What if someone wants to allocate hashtable dynamically which isn't
too unlikely?

In particular, once this goes in, I'd like to add RCU-based hash
resizing to it, which will require wrapping the hash table in a struct
that also contains the size.  So, please do consider having such a
struct rather than relying on static array sizes.

- Josh Triplett

--
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>