Re: [RFC, 2.6] a simple FIFO implementation

[Paul Jackson]

> Did you read my second patch ?

  Not closely enough ... ;).  Yes - your removal of 'len' does
  indeed seem to have addressed Andrews key initial comment.

> 'size' field instead of an 'end'

  The start, end, put, get names in that *.pdf might be a
  bit quicker to read.

  I suspect that more readers would come away with the right
  understanding, first time, if you struct was (taken roughly
  from the *.pdf, using an 'end' one bigger than *.pdf uses):

	/* kfifo is empty, not full, when head == tail */
	struct kfifo {
	    unsigned char *start;	/* [start, end) */
	    unsigned char *end;
	    unsigned char *head;	/* next input char goes in here */
	    unsigned char *tail;	/* next output char comes from here */
	    spinlock_t lock;
	};

  then your structure:

	struct kfifo {
	    unsigned int head;
	    unsigned int tail;
	    unsigned int size;
	    spinlock_t lock;
	    unsigned char *buffer;
	};

  Differences include names, all pointers, ordering of struct elements,
  and comments.  Perhaps some of these differences will look better to
  you than others.

> I wonder if replacing the kfifo_get/kfifo_put implementations with
> something like:

  Quite possibly.

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/