On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 07:54:42PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 07:44 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 06:48:07PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > No, it'll still use the anonymous union, so you'll still have a thing of
> > type "struct hash_table" with the given name, and you can use that name
> > with the hash-table functions.
>
> We can use 'struct hash_table' directly, but then the call will look awkward
> :)
>
> Consider this case (I've placed arbitrary values into size and name:
>
> /* I've "preprocessed" the DEFINE macro below */
> union {
> struct hash_table table;
> struct {
> size_t bits;
> struct hlist_head buckets[32];
> }
> } my_hashtable;
That expansion doesn't match the macros. Using the most recent
definitions of DEFINE_HASHTABLE and DEFINE_STATIC_HASHTABLE from above,
the definition would look something like this:
static union {
struct hash_table my_hashtable;
struct {
size_t bits;
struct hlist_head buckets[1 << 5];
} __my_hashtable;
} = { .my_hashtable.bits = 5 };
> void foo(struct hash_table *table)
> {
> /* Do something */
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
> foo(my_hashtable); /* This is what the user expects to work, and won't
> work in this case */
>
> foo(&my_hashtable.table); /* This is what he has to do, which means the
> user has to know about the internal structure of the union */
> }
Given the expansion above, you can just write this as
foo(&my_hashtable), which seems sensible to me.
- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
