Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

Hello,

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:47:47PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Tejun Heo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I suppose you mean unsized.  I remember this working.  Maybe I'm
confusing it with zero-sized array.  Hmm... gcc doesn't complain about
the following.  --std=c99 seems happy too.

Ok, I'm surprised, but maybe it's supposed to work if you do it inside
another struct like that, exactly so that you can preallocate things..

Yeah, I think the rule is var array should be the last member of any
given struct definition.  Once a struct is defined, its alignment and
size are fixed and it behaves like any other struct.

Or maybe it's just a gcc bug. I do think this all is way hackier than
Sasha's original simple code that didn't need these kinds of games,
and didn't need a size member at all.

I really think all the extra complexity and overhead is just *bad*.
The first simple version was much nicer and likely generated better
code too.

The size member could have performance impact in extreme cases.  If
we're looking for something simple & fast, maybe just pass in @size as
argument and be done with it?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
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>