[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC, 2.6] a simple FIFO implementation
On Monday 13 September 2004 08:52 am, Stelian Pop wrote:
> +static inline unsigned int kfifo_len(struct kfifo *fifo) {
> +       unsigned long flags;
> +       unsigned int result;
> +       
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&fifo->lock, flags);
> +       
> +       result = fifo->len;
> +
> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fifo->lock, flags);
> +
> +       return result;
> +}


I do not think that taking/releasing spinlock here serves any purpose as
len can get canged right after releasing the lock and therefore no longer
valid... And relying on result of kfifo_len to decide if the FIF can be
drained is not reliable so probably the inteface is better off without this

Also I think that most users would put only sertain structures (homogenous?)
in their FIFOs so maybe it should be:

struct kfifo *kfifo_alloc(unsigned int el_size, unsigned int len)
unsigned int kfifo_put(struct kfifo *fifo, void *buffer)
unsigned int kfifo_get(struct kfifo *fifo, void *buffer)

Also, don't we have a rule that for functions the opening curly brace should
be on a new line?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.084 / U:8.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site