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

[David Laight]

> > > And even then, if we would do:
> > >
> > >  	for (i = 0; i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable); i++)
> > >  		if (!hlist_empty(&hashtable[i]))
> > >  			break;
> > >
> > >  	return i >= HASH_SIZE(hashtable);
> > >
> > > What happens if the last entry of the table is non-empty ?
> >
> > It still works, as 'i' is not incremented due to the break. And i will
> > still be less than HASH_SIZE(hashtable). Did you have *your* cup of
> > coffee today? ;-)
> 
> Ahh, right! Actually I had it already ;-)

I tend to dislike the repeated test, gcc might be able to optimise
it away, but the code is cleaner written as:

	for (i = 0; i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable); i++)
		if (!hlist_empty(&hashtable[i]))
			return false;
	return true;

> Agreed that the flags should be removed. Moving to define + static
> inline is still important though.

Not sure I'd bother making the function inline.

	David



--
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/