From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752835AbZJYIMc (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:12:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752773AbZJYIMb (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:12:31 -0400 Received: from www84.your-server.de ([213.133.104.84]:38587 "EHLO www84.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752788AbZJYIM2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:12:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] kfifo: new API v0.6 From: Stefani Seibold To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , Amerigo Wang , Joe Perches In-Reply-To: <20091025014831.GC32470@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1256391194.7362.7.camel@wall-e> <20091025014831.GC32470@one.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:12:24 +0100 Message-Id: <1256458344.4026.3.camel@wall-e> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: stefani@seibold.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 02:48 +0100 schrieb Andi Kleen: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 03:33:14PM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote: > > This is a new generic kernel FIFO implementation. > > > > The current kernel fifo API is not very widely used, because it has to many > > constrains. Only 17 files in the current 2.6.31-rc5 used it. FIFO's are > > like list's a very basic thing and a kfifo API which handles the most use > > case would save a lot of development time and memory resources. > > > > I think this are the reasons why kfifo is not in use: > > > > - The API is to simple, important functions are missing > > - A fifo can be only allocated dynamically > > - There is a need of a spinlock despite you need it or not > > - There is no support for data records inside a fifo > > I have some plans to use this kfifo code in upcoming code (mostly > as a very simple lower overhead NMI safe per CPU fifo). I would appreciate > if it could be merged ASAP > > I didn't review this iteration, but earlier ones. > There was no modification in the code since the last version. I added only the function kfifo_avail_rec which has no site effect to the rest of the code. > Acked-by: Andi Kleen > > -Andi Stefani