On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:09:05 -0700 Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > date. > > 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 < ....' _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
