From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/39] firewire-lib: Add sort function for
 transmitted packet
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 22:29:44 +0900
Message-ID: <531DBE48.7040800@sakamocchi.jp>
References: <5316963F.1000206@sakamocchi.jp>
 <1394016507-15761-1-git-send-email-o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp>
 <1394016507-15761-10-git-send-email-o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp>
 <531CD7F9.1000303@ladisch.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org>
Received: from smtp310.phy.lolipop.jp (smtp310.phy.lolipop.jp [210.157.22.78])
 by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E609A2650EE
 for <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:29:49 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <531CD7F9.1000303@ladisch.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/options/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
To: Clemens Ladisch <clemens@ladisch.de>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, ffado-devel@lists.sf.net
List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org

(Mar 10 2014 06:07), Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> Then this should be done only when we actually have one of these known
> devices (and only when this error is known to happen, i.e., directly
> after a no-data packet); otherwise, this could, in theory, interfere with
> dropped packets.
>
>> This commit add sorting of in-packets. When callback of receive-context
>> is processed, the parameters of in-packets are stored in sort table and
>> sorted by its value of data block counter. The sort algorism works faster
>> in ordered sequence than in messy sequence. This is convinient for this
>> purpose because the sequence is assumed not to be so messy. After sorting,
>> packets are processed except for a last few packets in sort table. These
>> packets are stored in buffer once and used in next cycle.
>
> Only a single packet is out of order, i.e., only two packets are exchanged.
> So it is not necessary to run a general-purpose sorting algorithm; it would
> be sufficient to store a single packet if it is out of order.

I cannot prove 'there are only two packets are exchanged'. What I can 
prove is 'the sequence of packets includes a bit disorder'.

I think keeping packet sequence is important to all of devices. So here 
I applied generic processing for this purpose.

(I wonder why I received nothing about my RFC in November...)

> A NULL check is not necessary for kfree().

I did read /mm/slab.c and realize it.


Thanks

Takashi Sakamoto
o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp