[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E1DA232.30408@cam.ac.uk>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:48:34 +0100
From:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: RFC: Boiler plate functions for ida / idr allocation?
On 07/13/11 14:31, Tejun Heo wrote:
> (cc'ing Rusty Russell)
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:44:32AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> The other thing this highlights is that I suspect quite a few are protected by
>> spin locks when a mutex would be fine. Hence that might be worth tidying up first.
>>
>> Anyhow, a cleanup worth making? (obviously the exact form needs some work, but
>> I think the following is enough to start a discussion!)
>>
>> Subject: [PATCH] ida utility function
> 
> Rusty suggested similar addition some weeks ago, so people are really
> getting annoyed by this.
> 
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1148513/focus=74236
> 
> Here's an interface that I think should work,
> 
> 	int ida_get(struct ida *ida, int begin, int end, gfp_t gfp);
> 
> It uses an internal spinlock, returns the allocated ID and @end <= 0
> indicates no limit.
Cool.
Rusty, are you pursuing this?  Approach looks sensible to me.
--
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
 
