Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:33:32 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, davem@davemloft.net, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mingo@elte.hu, ebiederm@xmission.com, aarcange@redhat.com,
        ericvh@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        eric.dumazet@gmail.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        axboe@kernel.dk, agk@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, neilb@suse.de,
        ccaulfie@redhat.com, teigland@redhat.com, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com,
        bfields@fieldses.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, jesse@nicira.com,
        venkat.x.venkatsubra@oracle.com, ejt@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvswitch.org,
        rds-devel@oss.oracle.com, lw@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] hashtable: introduce a small and naive
 hashtable
Message-ID: <20120824203332.GF21325@google.com>
References: <1345602432-27673-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <1345602432-27673-2-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <20120822180138.GA19212@google.com>
 <50357840.5020201@gmail.com>
 <20120823200456.GD14962@google.com>
 <5037DA47.9010306@gmail.com>
 <20120824195941.GC21325@google.com>
 <5037E00B.6090606@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5037E00B.6090606@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1582
Lines: 45

Hello, Sasha.

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:11:55PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > If this implementation is about the common trivial case, why not just
> > have the usual DECLARE/DEFINE_HASHTABLE() combination?
> 
> When we add the dynamic non-resizable support, how would DEFINE_HASHTABLE() look?

Hmmm?  DECLARE/DEFINE are usually for static ones.

> > I don't know.  If we stick to the static (or even !resize dymaic)
> > straight-forward hash - and we need something like that - I don't see
> > what the full encapsulation buys us other than a lot of trivial
> > wrappers.
> 
> Which macros do you consider as trivial within the current API?
> 
> Basically this entire thing could be reduced to DEFINE/DECLARE_HASHTABLE and
> get_bucket(), but it would make the life of anyone who wants a slightly
> different hashtable a hell.

Wouldn't the following be enough to get most of the benefits?

* DECLARE/DEFINE
* hash_head()
* hash_for_each_head()
* hash_add*()
* hash_for_each_possible*()

> I think that right now the only real trivial wrapper is hash_hashed(), and I
> think it's a price worth paying to have a single hashtable API instead of
> fragmenting it when more implementations come along.

I'm not objecting strongly against full encapsulation but having this
many thin wrappers makes me scratch my head.

Thanks.

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