[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003151315580.11348@localhost>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:17:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>
To: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kfifo has temporarily invalid in pointer?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...shcourse.ca> wrote:
> >
> > (i am not trying to be annoyingly obsessive about the kernel kfifo,
> > i am merely succeeding.)
> :P
> > what appears to be a bit of an oddity WRT kfifo: since a kfifo is
> > defined with a fixed buffer size, it obviously enqueues and dequeues
> > in a circular fashion. so, the code to add some data to a kfifo (from
> > kernel/kfifo.c):
> >
> > =====
> > unsigned int kfifo_in(struct kfifo *fifo, const void *from,
> > unsigned int len)
> > {
> > len = min(kfifo_avail(fifo), len);
> >
> > __kfifo_in_data(fifo, from, len, 0);
> > __kfifo_add_in(fifo, len);
> > return len;
> > }
> > =====
> >
> > fair enough -- that first routine adds the data itself, while the
> > second one correspondingly bumps up the pointer, which could
> > conceivably wrap around to follow the data, correct? but from
> > include/linux.kfifo.h:len = min(kfifo_avail(fifo), len);
>
> Wrong :). If you notice len is truncated using:
> len = min(kfifo_avail(fifo), len);
kfifo_avail() is defined as returning the number of available bytes
left in the buffer ready to accept incoming data, even if that
incorporates wraparound. that is not relevant to the point i was
making.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
Powered by blists - more mailing lists