Re: [PATCH 1/2] treewide: idr: align IDR and IDA APIs

From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] treewide: idr: align IDR and IDA APIs
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 21:49:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YsIAypeKXFg97xbG@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220703181739.387584-1-dakr@redhat.com>

On Sun, Jul 03, 2022 at 08:17:38PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> For allocating IDs the ID allocator (IDA) provides the following
> functions: ida_alloc(), ida_alloc_range(), ida_alloc_min() and
> ida_alloc_max() whereas for IDRs only idr_alloc() is available.
> 
> In contrast to ida_alloc(), idr_alloc() behaves like ida_alloc_range(),
> which takes MIN and MAX arguments to define the bounds within an ID
> should be allocated - ida_alloc() instead implicitly uses the maximal
> bounds possible for MIN and MAX without taking those arguments.
> 
> In order to align the IDR and IDA APIs this patch provides
> implementations for idr_alloc(), idr_alloc_range(), idr_alloc_min() and
> idr_alloc_max(), which are analogue to the IDA API.

I don't really want to make any changes to the IDR API.  I want to get
rid of the IDR API.  I'm sorry you did all this work, but you should
probaby talk to the maintainer before embarking on such a big project.

If you're interested, converting IDR users to the XArray API is an
outstanding project that I'd be interested in encouraging.