[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 01/17] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
- From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928 gmail com>
- To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt goodmis org>
- 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>, lw cn fujitsu com, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu desnoyers efficios com>, axboe kernel dk, linux-nfs vger kernel org, edumazet google com, linux-mm kvack org, Pedro Alves <palves redhat com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, ejt redhat com, ebiederm xmission com, netdev vger kernel org, Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>, teigland redhat com, akpm linux-foundation org, torvalds linux-foundation org, davem davemloft net
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 01/17] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:21:54 +0200
On 09/06/2012 06:00 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > I think that that code doesn't make sense. The users of hlist_for_each_* aren't
>> > supposed to be changing the loop cursor.
> I totally agree. Modifying the 'node' pointer is just asking for issues.
> Yes that is error prone, but not due to the double loop. It's due to the
> modifying of the node pointer that is used internally by the loop
> counter. Don't do that :-)
While we're on this subject, I haven't actually seen hlist_for_each_entry() code
that even *touches* 'pos'.
Will people yell at me loudly if I change the prototype of those macros to be:
hlist_for_each_entry(tpos, head, member)
(Dropping the 'pos' parameter), and updating anything that calls those macros to
drop it as well?
Thanks,
Sasha
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]