linux-kernel - Re: RFC: Boiler plate functions for ida / idr allocation?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110721081946.GB3455@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:19:46 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Boiler plate functions for ida / idr allocation?

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 05:07:36PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> Subject: ida: Simplified functions for id allocation.
> 
> The current hyper-optimized functions are overkill if you simply want
> to allocate an id for a device.  Create versions which use an internal
> lock.
> 
> Thanks to Tejun for feedback.  Feel free to delete the #ifdef TEST
> code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
...
>  static struct kmem_cache *idr_layer_cache;
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(simple_ida);

I think the name is a bit confusing.  Maybe simple_ida_lock is better?
Other than that,

 Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

I guess this is best routed through -mm?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/