> > > 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 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/