Re: [patch 2/4 -mm] flex_array: add flex_array_clear function

[Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 13:29 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> > My only worry about this is that it's largely a copy-and-paste of
> > flex_array_put().  If we had a function that just returned a pointer to
> > 'dst', we could use that in both cases.  
> > 
> > Couldn't we implement the above with just:
> > 
> > int flex_array_clear(struct flex_array *fa, unsigned int element_nr)
> > {
> > 	return flex_array_put(fa, element_nr, &empty_zero_page);
> > }
> > 
> 
> Sure, if you never increase FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE.  Otherwise, doing
> 
> static char zero_part[FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE] = {
> 	[0 ... FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE - 1] = 0
> };
> 
> and using flex_array_put(fa, element_nr, &zero_part) would work although 
> you're trading off cleaner, yet not more efficient, code at the cost of 
> FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE wasted memory and memcpy() being slower than 
> memset().

Yeah, that's true.  How about using the get() function?

int flex_array_clear(struct flex_array *fa, unsigned int element_nr)
{
	void *element = flex_array_get(fa, element_nr);
	memset(element, FLEX_ARRAY_FREE, fa->element_size);
}

It'll keep us from having to keep around a zero'd element. 

But, I guess we could also do:

	struct flex_array_part *zero_part = empty_zero_page;

And use a BUILD_BUG_ON(FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE).  But the whole
point of this was to have elements that are smaller than PAGE_SIZE.
Having that as a constraint doesn't seem too bad. :)

-- Dave