Kevin Willford <kcwillf...@gmail.com> writes:
> +static int patch_id_cmp(struct patch_id *a,
> + struct patch_id *b,
> + void *keydata)
> {
> + return hashcmp(a->patch_id, b->patch_id);
> }
>
> int init_patch_ids(struct patch_ids *ids)
> {
> memset(ids, 0, sizeof(*ids));
> diff_setup(&ids->diffopts);
> DIFF_OPT_SET(&ids->diffopts, RECURSIVE);
> diff_setup_done(&ids->diffopts);
> + hashmap_init(&ids->patches, (hashmap_cmp_fn)patch_id_cmp, 256);
> return 0;
> }
This is a tangent, and I do not suggest to change patch 1/4 to flip
the style, but I am not sure if this is a good style, or casting it
the other way around is better from the type-checking point of view,
i.e.
static int cmp_fn(const void *a_, const void *b_, const void *keydata)
{
struct patch_id *a = a_;
struct patch_id *b = b_;
return hashcmp(a->patch_id, b->patch_id);
}
...
hashmap_init(..., cmp_fn, ...);
...
I see many existing calls to hashmap_init() follow this pattern, so
as I said, patch 1/4 is fine as-is.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
