* David Laight (david.lai...@aculab.com) wrote: > > > > 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, this looks like a good way to write it. > > 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. Do you mean you prefer to keep it as a macro, or that you don't think the "inline" keyword is relevant anymore, and want to do a "static" only function in the header file ? In both cases, please explain the reasons for doing things that way. Thanks, Mathieu > > David > > > -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- 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/
