From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx198.postini.com [74.125.245.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 339A96B006E for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:17:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 10so9034029ied.14 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:17:36 -0700 (PDT) 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> <20121029183157.GC3097@jtriplet-mobl1> <20121029185319.GA21546@Krystal> <20121029191256.GE4066@htj.dyndns.org> From: Sasha Levin Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:17:16 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/16] tracepoint: use new hashtable implementation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Josh Triplett , 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 On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Tejun Heo 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org