[RFCv2][PATCH] flexible array implementation
akpm at linux-foundation.org
Tue Jul 21 15:35:24 PDT 2009
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:09:05 -0700
Dave Hansen <dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 15:00 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > The interface is dirt simple. 4 functions:
> > alloc_flex_array()
> > free_flex_array()
> > flex_array_put()
> > flex_array_get()
> > put() appends an item into the array while get() takes
> > indexes and does array-style access.
> I need to update this description, but the kerneldoc comments are up to
> That reminds me... People will get somewhat weird behavior if they mix
> flex_array_append() and flex_array_put(). Is that OK? Should
> flex_array_put() modify ->nr_elements to point to the element past the
> one that was just put()? Should we perhaps drop the append() function
> and the ->nr_elements variable completely?
I'd say that we can drop ->append. C arrays don't have an `append', and
callers trivially append stuff to arrays all the time. `for (i = 0; i < ....'
More information about the Containers