Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "ida_".
Did you mean:
ida
2017 Dec 17
2
[PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations
...e to pass GFP flags to xbit_clear() and
xbit_zero(), and they can fail. It's not clear to me whether that's a
good tradeoff.
> Are you suggesting to rename the current xb_ APIs to the above xbit_ names (with parameter changes)?
>
> Why would we need xbit_alloc, which looks like ida_get_new, I think set/clear should be adequate to the current usages.
I'm intending on replacing the xb_ and ida_ implementations with this one.
It removes the preload API which makes it easier to use, and it handles
the locking for you.
But I need to get the XArray (which replaces the radix tr...
2017 Dec 17
2
[PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations
...e to pass GFP flags to xbit_clear() and
xbit_zero(), and they can fail. It's not clear to me whether that's a
good tradeoff.
> Are you suggesting to rename the current xb_ APIs to the above xbit_ names (with parameter changes)?
>
> Why would we need xbit_alloc, which looks like ida_get_new, I think set/clear should be adequate to the current usages.
I'm intending on replacing the xb_ and ida_ implementations with this one.
It removes the preload API which makes it easier to use, and it handles
the locking for you.
But I need to get the XArray (which replaces the radix tr...
2017 Dec 18
0
[PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations
...then have to pass GFP flags to xbit_clear() and
> xbit_zero(), and they can fail. It's not clear to me whether that's a
> good tradeoff.
Yes, this will sacrifice performance. In many usages, users may set bits
one by one, and each time when a bit is set, it needs to scan the whole
ida_bitmap to see if all other bits are set, if so, it can free the
ida_bitmap. I think this extra scanning of the ida_bitmap would add a
lot overhead.
>
>> Are you suggesting to rename the current xb_ APIs to the above xbit_ names (with parameter changes)?
>>
>> Why would we ne...
2017 Dec 15
2
[PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:49:15AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Here's the API I'm looking at right now. The user need take no lock;
> the locking (spinlock) is handled internally to the implementation.
I looked at the API some more and found some flaws:
- how does xbit_alloc communicate back which bit it allocated?
- What if xbit_find_set() is called on a completely empty
2017 Dec 15
2
[PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:49:15AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Here's the API I'm looking at right now. The user need take no lock;
> the locking (spinlock) is handled internally to the implementation.
I looked at the API some more and found some flaws:
- how does xbit_alloc communicate back which bit it allocated?
- What if xbit_find_set() is called on a completely empty