[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

On 09/06/2012 04:55 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:53:58PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 09/04/2012 07:01 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>> #define do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec)                                          \
>>>>>         for (pg = ftrace_pages_start, rec = &pg->records[pg->index];             \
>>>>>              pg && rec == &pg->records[pg->index];                               \
>>>>>              pg = pg->next)                                                      \
>>>>>           for (rec = pg->records; rec < &pg->records[pg->index]; rec++)
>>> Maybe in some cases there might be ways to combine the two loops into
>>> one ? I'm not seeing exactly how to do it for this one, but it should
>>> not be impossible. If the inner loop condition can be moved to the outer
>>> loop, and if we use (blah ? loop1_conf : loop2_cond) to test for
>>> different conditions depending on the context, and do the same for the
>>> 3rd argument of the for() loop. The details elude me for now though, so
>>> maybe it's complete non-sense ;)
>>> It might not be that useful for do_for_each_ftrace_rec, but if we can do
>>> it for the hash table iterator, it might be worth it.
>> So I think that for the hash iterator it might actually be simpler.
>> My solution to making 'break' work in the iterator is:A code like that doesn
>> 	for (bkt = 0, node = NULL; bkt < HASH_SIZE(name) && node == NULL; bkt++)
>> 		hlist_for_each_entry(obj, node, &name[bkt], member)
>> We initialize our node loop cursor with NULL in the external loop, and the
>> external loop will have a new condition to loop while that cursor is NULL.
>> My logic is that we can only 'break' when we are iterating over an object in the
>> internal loop. If we're iterating over an object in that loop then 'node != NULL'.
>> This way, if we broke from within the internal loop, the external loop will see
>> node as not NULL, and so it will stop looping itself. On the other hand, if the
>> internal loop has actually ended, then node will be NULL, and the outer loop
>> will keep running.
>> Is there anything I've missed?
> Looks reasonable.  However, it would break (or rather, not break) on
> code like this:
> 	hash_for_each_entry(...) {
> 		if (...) {
> 			foo(node);
> 			node = NULL;
> 			break;
> 		}
> 	}
> Hiding the double loop still seems error-prone.

I think that that code doesn't make sense. The users of hlist_for_each_* aren't
supposed to be changing the loop cursor.

We have three options here:

 1. Stuff everything into a single for(). While not too difficult, it will make
the readability of the code difficult as it will force us to abandon using
hlist_for_each_* macros.

 2. Over-complicate everything, and check for 'node == NULL && obj &&
obj->member.next == NULL' instead. That one will fail only if the user has
specifically set the object as the last object in the list and the node as NULL.

 3. Use 2 loops which might not work properly if the user does something odd,
with a big fat warning above them.

To sum it up, I'd rather go with 3 and let anyone who does things he shouldn't
be doing break.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]