linux-kernel - Re: [RFCv2][PATCH] flexible array implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1248214145.13249.5671.camel@nimitz>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:09:05 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, bblum@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com,
	vda.linux@...glemail.com, mikew@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFCv2][PATCH] flexible array implementation

On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 15:00 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> The interface is dirt simple.  4 functions:
>         alloc_flex_array()
>         free_flex_array()
>         flex_array_put()
>         flex_array_get()
> 
> put() appends an item into the array while get() takes
> indexes and does array-style access.

I need to update this description, but the kerneldoc comments are up to
date.

That reminds me...  People will get somewhat weird behavior if they mix
flex_array_append() and flex_array_put().  Is that OK?  Should
flex_array_put() modify ->nr_elements to point to the element past the
one that was just put()?  Should we perhaps drop the append() function
and the ->nr_elements variable completely?

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/