[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a9rltszn.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 05:41:16 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, bfields@...ldses.org,
skinsbursky@...allels.com, jmorris@...ei.org, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] idr: implement idr_alloc() and convert existing users
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
> Hello,
So my first response after looking at the ipc patch is ick.
Why the deep percpu magic?
Why don't associate idr_preload with an idr structure.
When reading code with idr_preload I get this deep down creepy feeling.
What is this magic that is going on?
Can't we just put the preload list_head into struct idr make
idr_preload and idr_preload_end take an idr argument?
Maybe we can have a special structure we put on the stack that has
the list_head and the preload state instead.
The way this works just weirds me out and I really really don't like it.
I would rather continue to use the existing functions as problematic as
they are as I don't need a course in deep magic to make sense of them.
> idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL);
> spin_lock(lock);
>
> id = idr_alloc(idr, ptr, lower_limit, upper_limit, GFP_NOWAIT);
>
> spin_unlock(lock);
> idr_preload_end();
> if (id < 0)
> return id;
Eric
--
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