David Brownell wrote:
And in case transfers is an array, we should either be apriory
aware of whether the chaining will take place or allocate an array large
enough to hold additional transfers. Neither of these look good to me,
and having a linked list of transfers will definitely solve this problem.
Well, that's the guts of the good example I was hoping you would share.
I'll be posting a refresh of this code soonish; maybe you can provide
a complete patch, changing all the code over to use list-not-array?
Let's agree upon that I'll proovide the complete patch as soon as you
repost all the patches from the very beginning (with the updates you've
made).
It's a little bit hard to track all that stuff now, I mean patches,
patches to patches, etc. :)
Vitaly
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
