Re: [RFC, 2.6] a simple FIFO implementation

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0200, Stelian Pop wrote:
> What about leaving kfifo_alloc as is (using kmalloc) and adding
> 	struct kfifo *kfifo_init(unsigned char *buffer, spinlock_t *lock);
> 	
> which let's you specify the buffer and the spinlock you want to use.
> Of course, one should not call kfifo_free() on such a struct kfifo...

I guess you need to pass down the size of the buffer too.

> 
> As a special case, the spinlock can be NULL and in this case it 
> allocates it. But in this case we should also make a kfifo_delete()
> to deallocate the lock...

that's fine with me, but allocating a lock dynamically? then probably
you should force the caller to allocate it, and force it to pass it down
either in the alloc or in the init function, the caller is going to have
a bigger data structure where it will embed the kfifo structure, so it'd
be normally zerocost for the caller to allocate a lock outside the
kfifo, even if the API becomes a bit uglier, but I don't see the need of
separate slab allocation for a single spinlock. 

> that just protecting the fifo. Unfortunately we cannot hide the
> internal spinlock from the users, this is just C.

indeed ;) (should be in theory a private field)

thanks.
-
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/