> On 31 May 2018, at 00:09, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:07:16PM +0200, Håkon Bugge wrote: >> >> >>> On 30 May 2018, at 17:10, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:22:56PM +0200, Hans Westgaard Ry wrote: >>> >>>> We came up with this code snippet which we think handles both preventing >>>> immediate re-use and too big/wrapping... >>> >>> Isn't this basically the same as idr_alloc_cyclic ? >> >> I draw my statement back. The idr_alloc_cyclic() is the family of idr's that associates a pointer with the bit. Hence, each bit is a bit + 64b. >> >> That's why we ended up with Hans' pseudo code. > > Okay, fair enough. > > Is it worth adding a ida_get_new_cyclic for this? My initial reaction was "no", but then I found the same cyclic behaviour in drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c Then in my opinion, it makes sense to create a ida_simple_get_cyclic() Thxs, Håkon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
