* David Laight ([email protected]) 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. > Also, should the loop have a 'break' in it?
+1 Removing unnecessary variables defined within a statement-expression is indeed something we want, and your suggestion of a macro calling a static inline is, IMHO, spot-on. The same should be done for hash_init(). And yes, a break would be welcome in that loop: no need to continue if we encounter a non-empty hlist. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- 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/
