![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 08:07:01PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > When implementing a circular buffer it is better to not constrain the head > and tail indices - just let them grow and wrap without bound. You only need > to bring them in-bounds when you actually use them to index the buffer. I'm not sure why that's better. > - head-tail is always the amount of used space, no need to futz around > handling the case where one has wrapped and the other hasn't. I admit I have a hangover, but it seems to me it would actually be more complicated to make damn sure that the integer overflow case is definitely handled properly. I clearly can't write functioning ring buffers :), so I'd prefer it to stay as simple as possible. regards, john -- Khendon's Law: If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread is over. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:00 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||