Re: idr_get_new_exact ?

[Steve Wise <swise-7bPotxP6k4+P2YhJcF5u+vpXobYPEAuW@public.gmane.org>]

On 09/20/2010 02:31 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:11:31 +0200
> Ohad Ben-Cohen<ohad-Ix1uc/W3ht7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Occasionally, drivers care about the value that idr associates with
>> their pointers.
>>
>> Today we have idr_get_new_above() which allocates a new idr entry
>> above or equal to a given starting id, but sometimes drivers need to
>> force an exact value.
>>
>> To overcome this small API gap, drivers are wrapping idr_get_new_above
>> and then either BUG_ON() or just call idr_remove() and returns -EBUSY
>> when idr allocates them an id which is different than their requested
>> value.
>>
>> There are only a handful of users who need this (see below. especially
>> note the i2c comment :), but it might be nice to have such an API (a
>> bit less of code, and a bit less error prone).
>>
>> Would something like the below be desirable/acceptable ?
>>      
> It seems OK to me - it's an improvement over what we have now.
>
>    

Looks ok to me also.  This is exactly what cxgb* needs.  IE the driver 
manages the ID space and never expects an idr insertion to fail because 
its already inserted.  That constitutes a driver bug (which is why the 
BUG_ON() is there :)).

Steve.