Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:59:52 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 14:45 +0100, David Laight wrote: > Amazing how something simple gets lots of comments and versions :-) > > > ... > > + * This has to be a macro since HASH_BITS() will not work on pointers since > > + * it calculates the size during preprocessing. > > + */ > > +#define hash_empty(hashtable) \ > > +({ \ > > + int __i; \ > > + bool __ret = true; \ > > + \ > > + for (__i = 0; __i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable); __i++) \ > > + if (!hlist_empty(&hashtable[__i])) \ > > + __ret = false; \ > > + \ > > + __ret; \ > > +}) > > Actually you could have a #define that calls a function > passing in the address and size.
Probably would be cleaner to do so.
> Also, should the loop have a 'break' in it?
Yeah it should, and could do:
for (i = 0; i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable); i++) if (!hlist_empty(&hashtable[i])) break;
return i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable);
-- Steve
| |