On Montag, 2. September 2019 12:16:26 CEST Greg Kurz wrote: > > > > @@ -571,22 +572,109 @@ static void coroutine_fn virtfs_reset(V9fsPDU > > > > *pdu) > > > > > > > > P9_STAT_MODE_NAMED_PIPE | \ > > > > P9_STAT_MODE_SOCKET) > > > > > > > > -/* This is the algorithm from ufs in spfs */ > > > > + > > > > +/* creative abuse of tb_hash_func7, which is based on xxhash */ > > > > +static uint32_t qpp_hash(QppEntry e) > > > > +{ > > > > + return qemu_xxhash7(e.ino_prefix, e.dev, 0, 0, 0); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static bool qpp_lookup_func(const void *obj, const void *userp) > > > > +{ > > > > + const QppEntry *e1 = obj, *e2 = userp; > > > > + return e1->dev == e2->dev && e1->ino_prefix == e2->ino_prefix; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static void qpp_table_remove(void *p, uint32_t h, void *up) > > > > +{ > > > > + g_free(p); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static void qpp_table_destroy(struct qht *ht) > > > > +{ > > > > + qht_iter(ht, qpp_table_remove, NULL); > > > > + qht_destroy(ht); > > > > +} > > > > > > Ok to have a function for this instead of open-coding but I'd > > > like to see qpp_table_init() for consistency. > > > > Well, these are just qht_init() one-liners, but if you really want to have > > dedicated, local init functions for them, okay. > > Yeah, even if it's a one-liner, I prefer consistency. Alternatively, with > an idempotent v9fs_device_unrealize_common() like in [1], you'd have > only one user for qpp_table_destroy() and you can open-code it. This > would address my consistency concern even better :) > > [1] > https://github.com/gkurz/qemu/commit/7fc4c49e910df2e155b36bf0a05de9209bd92d
I'll rather add qpp_table_init() then, because grouping the two calls qht_iter() and qht_destroy() together to a dedicated function qpp_table_destroy() still makes sense semantically IMO.