[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1262645259.6469.18.camel@wall-e>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:47:39 +0100
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [4/6] kfifo: add kfifo_out_peek
Am Montag, den 04.01.2010, 22:24 +0000 schrieb Alan Cox:
> > Macros are unpopular, for good reasons. But the case for a
> > template-based container such as this is a good one. However I worry
> > about the code bloat whcih the macro version might add. We worry about
> > all this later on.
>
> Its really a special case for structs and fixed objects.
>
> Bloat is going to be a big issue if its macro and all the serial/tty
> stuff switches to it. Please keep the bytewise one none macro - even if
> its a lib/foo.c file that simply uses the macros to produce the existing
> new API.
Nope, currently the bytewise is the special case. Most of the user of
kfifo try to store other type then bytes in a fifo.
The new macro based kfifo does not bloat the code, the opposite is the
truth. I checked the assembler output on intel and ppc and the generated
code is smaller and better.
The macro are written in a way that you get a useful single line compile
time error message.
Also "the power of two" thing will make the kfifo not very useable to
handle not multiple of 2 datas, in a fifo.
At last a type safe kfifo is 100% compatible to the current kfifo if the
the is a "unsigned char".
It would be better to discuss this in the "[PATCH] new kfifo API v.08"
threat from 28.12.2009.
Regards,
Stefani
--
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