Re: [PATCH v5] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

[Matthias Diener]

Sasha Levin (levinsasha928 <at> gmail.com) wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
><mathieu.desnoyers <at> efficios.com> wrote:
>> * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928 <at> gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
>>> +#define hash_init(hashtable)                                                 \
>>> +({                                                                           \
>>> +     int __i;                                                                \
>>> +                                                                             \
>>> +     for (__i = 0; __i < HASH_BITS(hashtable); __i++)                        \
>>
>> I think this fails to initialize the whole table. You'd need
>>
>>   HASH_BITS -> HASH_SIZE
>
>Right.
>
>Unfortunately it's pretty hard catching something like this :/
>
>> Which brings the following question: how did you test this code ? It
>> would be nice to have a small test module along with this patchset that
>> stress-tests this simple hash table in various configurations (on stack,
>> in data, etc).
>
>I do two things:
>
> - A small userspace test (since this header works just fine from
>userspace as well).


It would be interesting to run some experiments with this hashtable in
userspace.
Could you post the test code here?

Thanks,
Matthias
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/