On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:11:27AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 09:47 AM, Nitin Gupta wrote:
>
> > On 5/10/12 10:02 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> struct zs {
> >> void *ptr;
> >> };
> >>
> >> And pass that structure around?
> >>
> >
> > A minor problem is that we store this handle value in a radix tree node.
> > If we wrap it as a struct, then we will not be able to store it directly
> > in the node -- the node will have to point to a 'struct zs'. This will
> > unnecessarily waste sizeof(void *) for every object stored.
>
>
> I don't think so. You can use the fact that for a struct zs var, &var
> and &var->ptr are the same.
>
> For the structure above:
>
> void * zs_to_void(struct zs *p) { return p->ptr; }
> struct zs * void_to_zs(void *p) { return (struct zs *)p; }
Do like what the rest of the kernel does and pass around *ptr and use
container_of to get 'struct zs'. Yes, they resolve to the same pointer
right now, but you shouldn't "expect" to to be the same.
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>