[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] idr_get_new_exact ?
- From: Tejun Heo <htejun gmail com>
- To: Paul Mundt <lethal linux-sh org>
- Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad wizery com>, Andrew Morton <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>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] idr_get_new_exact ?
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:46:29 +0200
Hello,
On 09/23/2010 01:42 PM, Paul Mundt wrote:
> 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.
I see. If there are use cases where fixed and dynamic IDs need to be
mixed, no objection from me.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]