[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230908083608.4f01bf2c@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 08:36:08 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn
<andrew@...n.ch>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Heiner
Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>, Nicolò Veronese
<nicveronese@...il.com>, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/7] net: phy: introduce phy numbering and
phy namespaces
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 14:19:04 +0200 Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> > I think you can simplify this code quite a bit by using idr.
> > idr_alloc_cyclic() looks like it will do the allocation you want,
> > plus the IDR subsystem will store the pointer to the object (in
> > this case the phy device) and allow you to look that up. That
> > probably gets rid of quite a bit of code.
> >
> > You will need to handle the locking around IDR however.
>
> Oh thanks for pointing this out. I had considered idr but I didn't spot
> the _cyclic() helper, and I had ruled that out thinking it would re-use
> ids directly after freeing them. I'll be more than happy to use that.
Perhaps use xarray directly, I don't think we need the @base offset or
quick access to @next which AFAICT is the only reason one would prefer
IDR?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists