Re: [PATCH v6] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

[Steven Rostedt]

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.


> 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);

-- Steve


--
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/