MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20121029191256.GE4066@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <1351450948-15618-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <1351450948-15618-6-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <20121029113515.GB9115@Krystal> <CA+1xoqce6uJ6wy3+2CBwsLHKnsz4wD0vt8MBEGKCFfXTvuC0Hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121029183157.GC3097@jtriplet-mobl1> <CA+1xoqfMrn9zDFMJNFfA0NA86wE_DedD97cP1yJ2UQdTjs3uyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121029185319.GA21546@Krystal> <CA+1xoqcSx04JEXy2aPu4Qt7Zb4iSqXBSjARgMae_FusgzpgnaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121029191256.GE4066@htj.dyndns.org>
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:17:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+1xoqdi2pQENa=--FkPbOGOHgK+M26_jNCxGTkFiynqnR+7og@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/16] tracepoint: use new hashtable implementation
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, 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,
        eric.dumazet@gmail.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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1194
Lines: 26

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 03:09:36PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> The other thing is whether hash_init() should be called for hashtables
>> that were created with DEFINE_HASHTABLE(). That point was raised by
>> Neil Brown last time this series went around, and it seems that no one
>> objected to the point that it should be consistent across the code.
>
> Hmmm?  If something is DEFINE_XXX()'d, you definitely shouldn't be
> calling XXX_init() on it.  That's how it is with most other abstract
> data types and you need *VERY* strong rationale to deviate from that.

Neil Brown raised that point last time that this series went around,
and suggested that this should be consistent and hash_init() would
appear everywhere, even if DEFINE_HASHTABLE() was used. Since no one
objected to that I thought we're going with that.

I'll chalk it up to me getting confused :)


Thanks,
Sasha
--
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/