[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1351258786.10060.5.camel@wall-e>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:39:46 +0200
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kfifo: round up the fifo size power of 2
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 20:33 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:30:27AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 15:56 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > > Say, if we want to allocate a filo with size of 6 bytes, it would be safer
> > > to allocate 8 bytes instead of 4 bytes.
> > > ----
> > > I know it works with rounddown_pow_of_two as well, since size is maintained
> > > in the kfifo internal part. But, I'm quite curious why Stefani chose
> > > rounddown_pow_of_two. To reduce memory?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, exactly, if a user do the wrong thing, than the user will get also
> > a wrong result, and did not waste memory.
>
> But, isn't it better to 'correct' it? ;-)
Both is wrong. This depends on the view. For me it is better to get less
and don't wast space. For example: requesting 1025 will yield in your
case to a fifo which 2048 elements, which requires double of the memory
as expected.
>
> >
> > But anyway, if the majority like this patch it is okay for me.
>
> Sorry, do you mean you are OK with this patch?
>
I depends not on me, ask for a democratic decisions.
Greetings,
Stefani
--
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