[RFC][PATCH] flexible array implementation v3

Dave Hansen dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Jul 23 09:02:17 PDT 2009

On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:44 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> Probably premature, but -- I wonder if it's worth adding interfaces to:
> * copy a range of elements at once (perhaps to/from regular array ?
> or userspace ? -- depending on potential users)

I can see this making some sense, especially if you're dumping a bunch
of stuff out to userspace and don't want to worry about page boundaries,
etc...  Or, if you have a ton of stuff to copy and some of the
flex_array overhead is getting in the way.  I'm not opposed to it, but I
think I'd want to see a user first to make sure I got the implementation

> * (macro ?) iterate through elements (better have it ready for users
> of flex_array before, than convert their code later on)

I've thought about this, but I don't think there's much advantage to
doing it.  It obfuscates things without any real gain in simplicity.  We
have LIST_FOR_EACH() because containerof() and some of the typing is a
little non-obvious.  But, here, I think it's mostly dummy-proof:

We need a 'tmp' variable here because unlike list traversal, there's no
position implied in the variables.  So, we're looking at (with a new

	int tmp;
	FA_FOR_EACH(fa, var, tmp)


	int i;
	for (i = 0; i < fa->total_nr_elements; i++)
		foo(flex_array_get(fa, i));

The macro *looks* cleaner, but I don't think it really buys us much.

-- Dave

More information about the Containers mailing list