Subject: Re: [RFCv2][PATCH] flexible array implementation
From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, bblum@google.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, menage@google.com,
       vda.linux@googlemail.com, mikew@google.com
In-Reply-To: <20090721220017.60A219D3@kernel>
References: <20090721220017.60A219D3@kernel>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:09:05 -0700
Message-Id: <1248214145.13249.5671.camel@nimitz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 968
Lines: 27

On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 15:00 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> The interface is dirt simple.  4 functions:
>         alloc_flex_array()
>         free_flex_array()
>         flex_array_put()
>         flex_array_get()
> 
> put() appends an item into the array while get() takes
> indexes and does array-style access.

I need to update this description, but the kerneldoc comments are up to
date.

That reminds me...  People will get somewhat weird behavior if they mix
flex_array_append() and flex_array_put().  Is that OK?  Should
flex_array_put() modify ->nr_elements to point to the element past the
one that was just put()?  Should we perhaps drop the append() function
and the ->nr_elements variable completely?

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/