[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] idr_get_new_exact ?
- From: Paul Mundt <lethal linux-sh org>
- To: Tejun Heo <htejun gmail com>
- Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad wizery com>, akpm linux-foundation org, Steve Wise <swise chelsio com>, linux-ppp vger kernel org, Roland Dreier <rdreier cisco com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-raid vger kernel org, linux-rdma vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, Paul Mackerras <paulus samba org>, linux-i2c vger kernel org, "Ben Dooks \(embedded platforms\)" <ben-linux fluff org>, netdev vger kernel org, "Jean Delvare \(PC drivers, core\)" <khali linux-fr org>, Sean Hefty <sean hefty intel com>, Roland Dreier <rolandd cisco com>, Hal Rosenstock <hal rosenstock gmail com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] idr_get_new_exact ?
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:42:55 +0900
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 09/20/2010 10:35 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Looks fine to me as an improvement over the status quo, but I wonder how
> > many of these places could use the radix_tree stuff instead? If you're
> > not using the ability of the idr code to assign an id for you, then it
> > seems the radix_tree API is a better fit.
>
> I agree. Wouldn't those users better off simply using radix tree?
>
It could go either way. I was about to write the same function when
playing with it for IRQ mapping, the idea being to propagate the initial
tree with sparse static vectors and then switch over to dynamic IDs for
virtual IRQ creation. I ended up going with a radix tree for other
reasons, though.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]