Matt Mackall wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:52:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:47:07 -0500
Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
Why can't we just make the list one item longer than the entry count and
stick a NULL on the end of it like normal people ?
Certainly seems safer than the current "let's run off the end of the
list if anything bad happens" setup... And I do not think allocating
n+1 scatterlist entries will have much of a negative impact.
It'll mean m-1 scatterlists fit on a slab.
Is that really a credible space issue ?
Yes. Especially if m is 2 or 1. A scatterlist on 64-bit x86 looks like
it takes 32 bytes, which means 128 elements fit on a page. One more
spills - ouch!
...and its trivial to reduce that number to 127 without noticeable
effect, really.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
