Hi Ohtake, On 08/20/2010 08:01 AM, Masayuki Ohtake wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > >>>>>> 2. Why don't you use kernel existing kfifo infrastructure? ([2]). >>>>> Just take a look at kfifo.h. This structure has been changed. I remembered >>>> there was a spin_lock from kfifo previously. Currently it's been removed, >>>> good. >>>>> OKI-sans, would you please take a look at ./include/linux/kfifo.h, and >>>>> try to >>>> use this structure and APIs? >>>> >>>> As I see it, the code related to that fifo is not used (== dead code)? >>> I'm not familiar with kfifo structure, and I didn't like it because there >>> need a spin_lock to use it. > > We are about to study kfifo infra structure. > I have a question. > > It seems all CAN drivers accepted by upstream don't use kfifo infrastructure, > right ?
Right! > (I couldn't see message with "grep kfifo * in drivers/net/can") > > If yes, why should we use the kfifo ? > If no, please show me the kfifo reference driver Sorry, nobody (of the socketcan core developers) said that kfifo should be used. We believe, that an additional queuing of CAN messages is *not* needed at all. Just eliminate the related code and follow more closely the existing mainline drivers. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
