[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 01/16] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928 gmail com>
- Cc: snitzer redhat com, fweisbec gmail com, Trond Myklebust netapp com, bfields fieldses org, paul gortmaker windriver com, dm-devel redhat com, agk redhat com, aarcange redhat com, rds-devel oss oracle com, eric dumazet gmail com, venkat x venkatsubra oracle com, ccaulfie redhat com, mingo elte hu, dev openvswitch org, jesse nicira com, josh joshtriplett org, rostedt goodmis org, teigland redhat com, axboe kernel dk, linux-nfs vger kernel org, edumazet google com, linux-mm kvack org, netdev vger kernel org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, ejt redhat com, ebiederm xmission com, lw cn fujitsu com, mathieu desnoyers efficios com, akpm linux-foundation org, torvalds linux-foundation org, davem davemloft net
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 01/16] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:28:34 -0700
Hello,
(Sasha, would it be possible to change your MUA so that it breaks long
lines. It's pretty difficult to reply to.)
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:24:49AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> The hashtable uses hlist. hlist provides us with an entire family of
> init functions which I'm supposed to use to initialize hlist heads.
>
> So while a memset(0) will work perfectly here, I consider that
> cheating - it results in an uglier code that assumes to know about
> hlist internals, and will probably break as soon as someone tries to
> do something to hlist.
I think we should stick with INIT_HLIST_HEAD(). It's not a hot path
and we might add, say, debug fields or initialization magics added
later. If this really matters, the right thing to do would be adding
something like INIT_HLIST_HEAD_ARRAY().
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]