Re: add function for creating/attaching hash table in DSM registry

> On 10 Jun 2025, at 7:21 PM, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:38:29AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 07:14:28PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
>>> Going back to the original point, DSMRegistryHash and DSMRegistryHash
>>> are built-in, and those names are well-defined and actually refer to
>>> waits related to the mechanism of registering a DSA or a HASH.
>>> I think it will be odd to append "_dsh", but we should at minimum add
>>> a comment in the GetNamedDSMHash explaining this.
>>
>> This should be addressed in v3.
>>
>> I'm not quite following your uneasiness with the tranche names. For the
>> dshash table, we'll need a tranche for the DSA and one for the hash table,
>> so presumably any wait events for those locks should be named accordingly,
>> right?
>
> Unrelated, but it'd probably be a good idea to make sure the segment is
> initialized instead of assuming it'll be zeroed out (and further assuming
> that DSHASH_HANDLE_INVALID is 0)...
>
> --
> nathan
> <v4-0001-simplify-creating-hash-table-in-dsm-registry.patch>

Love this new API.

Two minor things

a minor typo here
+ * current backend. This function gurantees that only one backend

Since you made the first step towards decoupling DSMR_NAME_LEN from NAMEDATALEN;
is it worth considering increasing this to 128 maybe?

I’ve used DSMR extensively for namespacing keys etc, and I’ve come close to 50-60 chars at times.

I’m not too fixed on that though.