On 09/26/2012 03:59 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
I think it's worth it if it was more complex than a simple loop. We were doing
a similar thing with the _size() functions (see
version 4 of this patch), but decided to remove it since it was becoming too
complex.
>
>
>> 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);
Right.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
