# Re: \[PATCH v7 06/16\] tracepoint: use new hashtable implementation

- From: Sasha Levin \<hidden\>
- Date: 2012-10-29 19:17:40 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2012/10/3948056
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-mm/2012/10/3947266/t.md

```text
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Tejun Heo [ref] wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 03:09:36PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> The other thing is whether hash_init() should be called for hashtables
>> that were created with DEFINE_HASHTABLE(). That point was raised by
>> Neil Brown last time this series went around, and it seems that no one
>> objected to the point that it should be consistent across the code.
>
> Hmmm?  If something is DEFINE_XXX()'d, you definitely shouldn't be
> calling XXX_init() on it.  That's how it is with most other abstract
> data types and you need *VERY* strong rationale to deviate from that.

Neil Brown raised that point last time that this series went around,
and suggested that this should be consistent and hash_init() would
appear everywhere, even if DEFINE_HASHTABLE() was used. Since no one
objected to that I thought we're going with that.

I'll chalk it up to me getting confused :)


Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
```