[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adaiq20f90h.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:35:42 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Jean Delvare \(PC drivers\, core\)" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
"Ben Dooks \(embedded platforms\)" <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
Steve Wise <swise@...lsio.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: idr_get_new_exact ?
> Occasionally, drivers care about the value that idr associates with
> their pointers.
>
> Today we have idr_get_new_above() which allocates a new idr entry
> above or equal to a given starting id, but sometimes drivers need to
> force an exact value.
>
> To overcome this small API gap, drivers are wrapping idr_get_new_above
> and then either BUG_ON() or just call idr_remove() and returns -EBUSY
> when idr allocates them an id which is different than their requested
> value.
Looks fine to me as an improvement over the status quo, but I wonder how
many of these places could use the radix_tree stuff instead? If you're
not using the ability of the idr code to assign an id for you, then it
seems the radix_tree API is a better fit.
- R.
--
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