Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:36:49 +0200 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable |
| |
On 08/03/2012 11:30 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> I think hash_for_for_each_possible() is useful if the comparison >> > condition is more complex than a simple comparison of one of the >> > object members with the key - there's no need to force it on all the >> > users. > I don't know. What's the difference? In terms of LOC, it might even > not save any thanks to the extra function definition, right? I don't > think it's saving enough complexity to justify a separate rather > unusual interface.
The function definition itself is just a macro, for example:
#define MM_SLOTS_HASH_CMP(mm_slot, obj) ((mm_slot)->mm == (obj))
As an alternative, what do you think about simplifying that to be just a 'cond' instead of a function? Something like:
hash_get(&mm_slots_hash, mm, struct mm_slot, hash, mm);
In that case, the last param ("mm") will get unrolled to a condition like this:
if ((obj)->mm == key)
Which will be simple and easy for the user.
The only reason I want to keep this interface is that most cases I've stumbled so far were easy short comparisons of a struct member with the key, and I don't want to make them more complex than they need to be. I probably will switch hash_get() to use hash_for_each_possible() as well, which will cut down on how hash_get() is a separate case.
| |