Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:07:40 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/9] Conditional Calls - Hash Table |
| |
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:46:23PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Matt Mackall (mpm@selenic.com) wrote: > > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:42:50PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> writes: > > > > > > > Reimplementation of the cond calls which uses a hash table to hold the active > > > > cond_calls. It permits to first arm a cond_call and then load supplementary > > > > modules that contain this cond_call. > > > > > > Hash table is probably overkill. This is a very very slow path operation. > > > Can you simplify the code? Just a linked list of all the condcall segments > > > should be enough and then walk it. > > > > I think it could be greatly simplified by using symbols instead of > > strings. > > > > That is, doing cond_call(foo, func()) rather than cond_call("foo", > > func()). Here foo is a structure or type holding the relevant info to > > deal with the cond_call infrastructure. For unoptimized architectures, > > it can simply be a bool, which will be faster. > > > > This has the added advantage that the compiler will automatically pick > > up any misspellings of these things. And it saves the space we'd use > > on the hash table too. > > > > The idea is interesting, but does not fit the problem: AFAIK, it will > not be possible to do multiple declarations of the same symbol, which is > needed whenever we want to declare a cond_call() more than once or to > embed it in an inline function.
It's not clear to me why either of those things are necessary. An example please?
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |