On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 06:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Davide Libenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > a) Were IDR trees evaluated and if so, why were they rejected? > > > > b) it's a bit disappointing that this new allocator is only usable for > > one specific application. We have a *lot* of places in the kernel which > > want allocators of this type. Many of them are open-coded and crappy. > > Some use IDR trees. > > > > If we're going to go and add a complete new allocator, it would be > > good to position it as a library thing if poss. > > Thank you for pointing me to that, Andrew. I didn't know about it (IDR > trees). > It does not fit AFAICS. > Locking should be handled extarnally (the files > struct), Yeah, that's already a problem in IDR and I'm hoping sometime someone will be inspired to redo it, move it to caller-provided locking. > must be RCU friendly (proper barriers) since it's used in > lockless code, Haven't looked at that. > and must have flags associated to an allocation. Don't understand that. > And I'm > leaving out the O(1) part, that for something like this, is just silly not > to have it. This is really an array. Having to walk down a tree in fget_light() would kinda suck. What about my b)? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
