[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v7 06/16] tracepoint: use new hashtable implementation
- 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 Triplett <josh joshtriplett org>, rostedt goodmis org, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu desnoyers efficios 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, teigland redhat com, akpm linux-foundation org, torvalds linux-foundation org, davem davemloft net
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v7 06/16] tracepoint: use new hashtable implementation
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:12:56 -0700
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.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]