Hi Linus, On 08/04/2012 01:47 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Or maybe it's just a gcc bug. I do think this all is way hackier than > Sasha's original simple code that didn't need these kinds of games, > and didn't need a size member at all. > > I really think all the extra complexity and overhead is just *bad*. > The first simple version was much nicer and likely generated better > code too.
The problem with that code was that it doesn't work with dynamically allocated hashtables, or hashtables that grow/shrink. The alternative to going down this path, is going back to the old code and saying that it only works for the simple case, and if you're interested in something more complex it should have it's own different implementation. Does it make sense? We'll keep the simple & common case simple, and let anyone who needs something more complex than this write it as an extension? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
