Re: [RFC 1/4] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

[Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/02/2012 06:15 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 03:04:19PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 08/02/2012 01:23 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> #define DEFINE_HASH_TABLE(name, length) struct hash_table name = { .count = length, .buckets = { [0 ... (length - 1)] = HLIST_HEAD_INIT } }
>>> The limitation of this approach is that the struct hash_table variable must be 'static', which is a bit limiting - see for example the use of hashtable in 'struct user_namespace'.
>>>
>>
>> What if we just use two possible decelerations? One of static structs and one for regular ones.
>>
>> struct hash_table {
>>         size_t bits;
>>         struct hlist_head buckets[];
>> };
>>
>> #define DEFINE_HASHTABLE(name, bits)                                    \
>>         union {                                                         \
>>                 struct hash_table name;                                 \
>>                 struct {                                                \
>>                         size_t bits;                                    \
> 
> This shouldn't use "bits", since it'll get expanded to the macro
> argument.
> 
>>                         struct hlist_head buckets[1 << bits];           \
>>                 } __name;                                               \
> 
> __##name
> 
>>         }
>>
>> #define DEFINE_STATIC_HASHTABLE(name, bit)                              \
>>         static struct hash_table name = { .bits = bit,                  \
>>                 .buckets = { [0 ... (bit - 1)] = HLIST_HEAD_INIT } }
> 
> You probably wanted to change that to [0 ... ((1 << bit) - 1)] , to
> match DEFINE_HASHTABLE.

I wrote it by hand and didn't compile test, will fix all of those.

> Since your definition of DEFINE_HASHTABLE would also work fine when used
> statically, why not just always use that?
> 
> #define DEFINE_STATIC_HASHTABLE(name, bits) static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(name, bits) = { .name.bits = bits }

It will get defined fine, but it will be awkward to use. We'd need to pass anonymous union to all the functions that handle this hashtable, which isn't pretty.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/