Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:44:14 -0700 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable |
| |
Hello, Sasha.
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 08/03/2012 11:30 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > The function definition itself is just a macro, for example: > > #define MM_SLOTS_HASH_CMP(mm_slot, obj) ((mm_slot)->mm == (obj))
It seems like it would make things more difficult to follow and error-prone. I'd definitely prefer just using functions.
> 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.
It seems a bit too magical(tm) to me. ;)
> 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.
I can understand that but I think the benefit we're talking about is a bit too miniscule to matter and to have two different interfaces. What do others think?
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |