From: Neil Horman
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:00:15 -0500
> I suggest xin respond to messageid
> 20180523011821.12165-6-kent.overstr...@gmail.com> and send a NAK,
> indicating that his patch seems like it will break the build, as,
> looking through it, it never removes flex_array calls from the sct
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:50:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Xin Long
> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:30:32 +0800
>
> > Without the support for the total_nr_elements's growing or shrinking
> > dynamically, flex_array is not that 'flexible'. Like when users want
> > to change the size, they h
From: Xin Long
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:30:32 +0800
> Without the support for the total_nr_elements's growing or shrinking
> dynamically, flex_array is not that 'flexible'. Like when users want
> to change the size, they have to redo flex_array_alloc and copy all
> the elements from the old to t
Kent Overstreet had a patch set to completely remove flex arrays:
20180907165635.8469-7-kent.overstr...@gmail.com
I wonder where that set went.
Without the support for the total_nr_elements's growing or shrinking
dynamically, flex_array is not that 'flexible'. Like when users want
to change the size, they have to redo flex_array_alloc and copy all
the elements from the old to the new one. The worse thing is every
element's memory gets cha
