[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110721083501.GC3455@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:35:01 +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 10:19:46AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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,
Ooh, one more thing, maybe it would be better to use spin_lock_irq()
to allow calling free under other irq locks.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists