Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

[Sasha Levin]

On 08/03/2012 11:48 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:41:34PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> So, if you do the following,
> 
> 	struct {
> 		struct {
> 			int i;
> 			long ar[];
> 		} B;
> 		long __ar_storage[32];
> 	} A;

struct A should have been an union, right?

> It should always be safe to dereference A.B.ar[31].  I'm not sure
> whether this is something guaranteed by C tho.  Maybe compilers are
> allowed to put members in reverse order but I think we already depend
> on the above.

why is accessing A.B.ar[31] safe?

__ar_storage is only 32*sizeof(long) bytes long, while struct B would need to be 32*sizeof(long) + sizeof(int) bytes long so that A.B.ar[31] access would be safe.


> Thanks.
> 

--
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/