Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:00:33 +0200 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 1/4] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable |
| |
On 08/02/2012 12:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 12:41:56AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: >> How would your DEFINE_HASHTABLE look like if we got for the simple >> 'struct hash_table' approach? > > I think defining a different enclosing anonymous struct which the > requested number of array entries and then aliasing the actual > hash_table to that symbol should work. It's rather horrible and I'm > not sure it's worth the trouble.
I agree that this is probably not worth the trouble.
At the moment I see two alternatives:
1. Dynamically allocate the hash buckets.
2. Use the first bucket to store size. Something like the follows:
#define HASH_TABLE(name, bits) \ struct hlist_head name[1 << bits + 1];
#define HASH_TABLE_INIT (bits) ({name[0].next = bits});
And then have hash_{add,get} just skip the first bucket.
While it's not a pretty hack, I don't see a nice way to avoid having to dynamically allocate buckets for all cases.
| |