Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

From: Ryan Mallon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:54:15 +1000

On 23/08/12 04:01, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Sasha.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:26:56AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> +#define DEFINE_HASHTABLE(name, bits)					\
>> +	struct hlist_head name[HASH_SIZE(bits)];
> 
> Shouldn't this be something like the following?
> 
> #define DEFINE_HASHTABLE(name, bits)					\
> 	struct hlist_head name[HASH_SIZE(bits)] =			\
> 		{ [0 ... HASH_SIZE(bits) - 1] = HLIST_HEAD_INIT };
> 
> Also, given that the declaration isn't non-trivial, you'll probably
> want a matching DECLARE_HASHTABLE() macro too.
> 
>> +/* 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)))
> 
> Why is the branching condition sizeof(val) == 4 instead of <= 4?
> Also, no biggie but why isn't this macro in caps?

It should probably use gcc's statement expression extensions to prevent
side-effect issues with the arguments:

  #define hash_min ({		\
	sizeof(val) <= 4 ?	\
	hash_32(val, bits) :	\
	hash_long(val, bits));	\
  })

~Ryan

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to [email-masked].  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email-masked]"> [email-masked] </a>