Re: [PATCH v8 01/16] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Jim Rees [off-list ref] wrote:

Sasha Levin wrote:

  On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo [off-list ref] wrote:
  > Hello,
  >
  > Just some nitpicks.
  >
  > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
  >> +/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit kernels. */
  >> +#define hash_min(val, bits)                                                  \
  >> +({                                                                           \
  >> +     sizeof(val) <= 4 ?                                                      \
  >> +     hash_32(val, bits) :                                                    \
  >> +     hash_long(val, bits);                                                   \
  >> +})
  >
  > Doesn't the above fit in 80 column.  Why is it broken into multiple
  > lines?  Also, you probably want () around at least @val.  In general,
  > it's a good idea to add () around any macro argument to avoid nasty
  > surprises.

  It was broken to multiple lines because it looks nicer that way (IMO).

  If we wrap it with () it's going to go over 80, so it's going to stay
  broken down either way :)

I would prefer the body be all on one line too. But shouldn't this be a
static inline function?

We want sizeof(val), which wouldn't work in a static inline. We can
either wrap a static inline __hash_min() with a macro and pass that
size to it, but that's quite an overkill here, or we can add a size
parameter to hash_min(), but it would look awkward considering how
hash_32()/hash_64()/hash_long() look like.


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