[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090721153524.54a08fa5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:35:24 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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, 21 Jul 2009 15:09:05 -0700
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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?
I'd say that we can drop ->append. C arrays don't have an `append', and
callers trivially append stuff to arrays all the time. `for (i = 0; i < ....'
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists