From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:30:32 +0800 > Without the support for the total_nr_elements's growing or shrinking > dynamically, flex_array is not that 'flexible'. Like when users want > to change the size, they have to redo flex_array_alloc and copy all > the elements from the old to the new one. The worse thing is every > element's memory gets changed. > > To implement flex_array_resize based on current code, the difficult > thing is to process the size border of FLEX_ARRAY_BASE_BYTES_LEFT, > where the base data memory may change to an array for the 2nd level > data memory for growing, likewise for shrinking. > > To make this part easier, we separate the base data memory and define > FLEX_ARRAY_BASE_SIZE as a same value of FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE, as Neil > suggested. When new size is crossing the border, the base memory is > allocated as the array for the 2nd level data memory and its part[0] > is pointed to the old base memory, and do the opposite for shrinking. > > But it doesn't do any memory allocation or shrinking for elements in > flex_array_resize, as which should be done by flex_array_prealloc or > flex_array_shrink called by users. No memory leaks can be caused by > that. > > SCTP has benefited a lot from flex_array_resize() for managing its > stream memory so far. > > v1->v2: > Cc LKML and more developers. So I don't know what to do about this series. One of the responses stated that it has been proposed to remove flex_array and I don't know what to make of that, nor can I tell if that makes this series inappropriate or not.
