Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

[Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:41:34PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> I forgot to comment on that one, sorry.
> 
> If we put hash entries after struct hash_table we don't take the
> bits field size into account, or did I miss something?

So, if you do the following,

	struct {
		struct {
			int i;
			long ar[];
		} B;
		long __ar_storage[32];
	} A;

It should always be safe to dereference A.B.ar[31].  I'm not sure
whether this is something guaranteed by C tho.  Maybe compilers are
allowed to put members in reverse order but I think we already depend
on the above.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html