Hello, On 09/23/2010 01:42 PM, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On 09/20/2010 10:35 PM, Roland Dreier wrote: >>> Looks fine to me as an improvement over the status quo, but I wonder how >>> many of these places could use the radix_tree stuff instead? If you're >>> not using the ability of the idr code to assign an id for you, then it >>> seems the radix_tree API is a better fit. >> >> I agree. Wouldn't those users better off simply using radix tree? >> > It could go either way. I was about to write the same function when > playing with it for IRQ mapping, the idea being to propagate the initial > tree with sparse static vectors and then switch over to dynamic IDs for > virtual IRQ creation. I ended up going with a radix tree for other > reasons, though. I see. If there are use cases where fixed and dynamic IDs need to be mixed, no objection from me. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
