Re: [RFC 1/4] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
From: Sasha Levin <hidden>
Date: 2012-08-02 16:47:42
Also in:
lkml
On 08/02/2012 06:15 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 03:04:19PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:quoted
On 08/02/2012 01:23 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:quoted
quoted
#define DEFINE_HASH_TABLE(name, length) struct hash_table name = { .count = length, .buckets = { [0 ... (length - 1)] = HLIST_HEAD_INIT } }The limitation of this approach is that the struct hash_table variable must be 'static', which is a bit limiting - see for example the use of hashtable in 'struct user_namespace'.What if we just use two possible decelerations? One of static structs and one for regular ones. struct hash_table { size_t bits; struct hlist_head buckets[]; }; #define DEFINE_HASHTABLE(name, bits) \ union { \ struct hash_table name; \ struct { \ size_t bits; \This shouldn't use "bits", since it'll get expanded to the macro argument.quoted
struct hlist_head buckets[1 << bits]; \ } __name; \__##namequoted
} #define DEFINE_STATIC_HASHTABLE(name, bit) \ static struct hash_table name = { .bits = bit, \ .buckets = { [0 ... (bit - 1)] = HLIST_HEAD_INIT } }You probably wanted to change that to [0 ... ((1 << bit) - 1)] , to match DEFINE_HASHTABLE.
I wrote it by hand and didn't compile test, will fix all of those.
Since your definition of DEFINE_HASHTABLE would also work fine when used
statically, why not just always use that?
#define DEFINE_STATIC_HASHTABLE(name, bits) static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(name, bits) = { .name.bits = bits }It will get defined fine, but it will be awkward to use. We'd need to pass anonymous union to all the functions that handle this hashtable, which isn't pretty. -- 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>