(Cc: Matthew) Let's get this clarified to not work with assumptions. :)
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:59:41PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > On 5/24/25 13:17, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 04:11:39PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > So, your code here should be correct. However, I'd still remove the goto and > > just call xas_store() again. There's no reason to make this a loop and > > backwards > > goto is better avoided anyways. :) > > > I was considering that as well, but than abandoned this idea. The xarray() > sample code and test cases as well as the use cases where I took a look > either use a loop or a goto. > > I'm not 100% sure why, my suspicion is that you need the loop when there can > be concurrent add/remove operations on the xarray, but I think we should > stick with the common approach. I don't think that concurrency is relevant here. xas_nomem() stores the allocated memory in the XA_STATE structure, which is on the stack. I know that for maple tree a pre-allocation is only valid for the exact state of the tree it was allocated for. But I think xarray does not have this limitation, i.e. concurrent modification of the xarray does not invalidate an xas_nomem() allocation in terms of being sufficient for a subsequent store. @Matthew: Can you clarify this please?
