Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:41:34 +0200 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable |
| |
On 08/03/2012 11:30 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:19:57PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> Is this supposed to be embedded in struct definition? If so, the name >>> is rather misleading as DEFINE_* is supposed to define and initialize >>> stand-alone constructs. Also, for struct members, simply putting hash >>> entries after struct hash_table should work. >> >> It would work, but I didn't want to just put them in the union since >> I feel it's safer to keep them in a separate struct so they won't be >> used by mistake, > > Just use ugly enough pre/postfixes. If the user still accesses that, > it's the user's fault.
I forgot to comment on that one, sorry.
If we put hash entries after struct hash_table we don't take the bits field size into account, or did I miss something?
| |