From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:02:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:02:17 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:2576 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:02:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:01:28 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Roman Zippel cc: Alan Cox , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Manfred Spraul , Christoph Hellwig , Steve Lord , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kiobuf-io-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Roman Zippel wrote: > > > > int nr_buffers: > > struct buffer *array; > > > > should be the low-level abstraction. > > Does it has to be vectors? What about lists? I'd prefer to avoid lists unless there is some overriding concern, like a real implementation issue. But I don't care much one way or the other - what I care about is that the setup and usage time is as low as possible. I suspect arrays are better for that. I have this strong suspicion that networking is going to be the most latency-critical and complex part of this, and the fact that the networking code wanted arrays is what makes me think that arrays are the right way to go. But talk to Davem and ank about why they wanted vectors. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/