[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830907240807k1c2cbf8cx97abdebddd42bfd3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:07:04 -0700
From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vda.linux@...glemail.com,
mikew@...gle.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, hpa@...or.com,
bblum@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] flexible array implementation v4
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:08 PM, KAMEZAWA
Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:02:28 +0800
> Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hansen wrote:
>> > Remaining issues:
>> > - How should we deal with out-of-range indexes, especially
>> > in flex_array_get() which returns void*? ERR_PTR()?
>> > BUG_ON()? return NULL (current behavior)?
>> > - Should care be taken not to allow a flex_array_get() to
>> > an index where no flex_array_put() was done?
>> > - Should we decay further than just packing things into the
>> > 'base' page? Should we actually kmalloc() less than a
>> > page at times when it will fit?
>> >
>>
>> I sugguest find some candidate users and see how this flex_array
>> fits them.
>>
> Hmm, can't we rewrite cgroup->tasks file using this ?
> I'll try some if I have time.
We could, but I've been leaning more towards Eric's suggestion of
avoiding allocating the array entirely - see
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/15/226
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/21/393
Paul
--
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