[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9c3a7c20908141056o32ce1204k6751b43271aa88ab@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:56:18 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com,
vda.linux@...glemail.com, mikew@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
hpa@...or.com, bblum@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] flexible array implementation v4
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Morton<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:26:47 -0700
> Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> linux-2.6.git-dave/include/linux/flex_array.h | 46 ++++
>> linux-2.6.git-dave/lib/Makefile | 2
>> linux-2.6.git-dave/lib/flex_array.c | 269 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I haven't looked at this lately but I merged it.
>
> As it's obviously non-injurious, we could slip it into 2.6.31 for
> convenience's sake but without any callers that's just runtime bloat.
> So I guess we wait for some additional callers to come along and prove
> its worth.
>
I am considering using this for managing the descriptor ring in a
device driver, but I am concerned with the overhead of the divides.
Would it be acceptable to round the element size to the next
power-of-2 value so we can replace all the divides with shifts?
Thanks,
Dan
--
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