On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:31:35PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:33:05PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:16:07PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:52:48PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > Whether the API is better is debatable. As I said, almost no drivers use > > > > the new XArray interface, and perhaps partly because the new interface > > > > isn't as intuitive as has been claimed (e.g. xa_load() instead of > > > > ida_find()). And IDR/IDA isn't marked/documented as deprecated as far as > > > > I know. > > > Why do you think that idr_find() is more intuitive than xa_load()? > > > The 'find' verb means that you search for something. But it doesn't > > > search for anything; it just returns the pointer at that index. > > > 'find' should return the next non-NULL pointer at-or-above a given > > > index. > > > > We're looking up a minor number which may or may not exist. "Find" (or > > "lookup" or "search") seems to describe this much better than "load" > > (even if that may better reflect the implementation of XArray). > > It's not the _implementation_ that it fits, it's the _idiom_. > The implementation is a lookup in a trie. The idiom of the XArray > is that it's a sparse array, and so it's a load. Ok, but it still stands out in the conversions since it is in no way obvious that idr_find() should be replaced by xa_load() from just looking at the diff. You need to look up the interface for that. > > And no, I would not expect a find implementation to return the next > > entry if the requested entry does not exist (and neither does idr_find() > > or radix_tree_lookup()). > > Oh dear. You've been corrupted by the bad naming of the IDR functions > ;-( Heh. Don't flatter yourself. Just look up any text book on data structures. Johan _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|