apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy" <gri...@ispol.com>
Subject Re: A question about rings.
Date Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:10:36 GMT

On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
> > In other words, instead of
> >
> > #define APR_RING_SENTINEL(hp, elem, link)                               \
> >     (struct elem *)((char *)(hp) - APR_OFFSETOF(struct elem, link))
> >
> > Why not:
> >
> > #define APR_RING_SENTINEL(hp, elem)                               \
> >     (struct elem *)(hp)
> >
> > It so happens that the APR_RING_ENTRY is always first in the element
> > structure, and so the offset is 0 which is why it works (and the macros
> > above yeld same result). But it seems to me that if the APR_RING_ENTRY
> > was't first, then the result of APR_RING_SENTINEL could be a pointer to
> > somewhere before beginning of head, or some place within head but before
> > APR_RING_HEAD, which could be some arbitrary and not necessarily constant
> > value.
> That's in fact exactly the point.  The sentinel value is not really to be
> thought of as a pointer to anything in particular... it's just a magic
> number.  A ring element structure can be set up so that each element can
> be on more than one ring at a time.  In that case, each of the rings
> attached to any given head needs a unique sentinel value.  So while it's
> true that this is hardly ever used and is optimized away, it's there just
> in case somebody wants to use it.
> Make more sense?

Thanks for the explanation.

I guess I am just having a difficult time picturing a scenario where
elements are on multiple rings but must share the same head. I suppose
there is a small gain in not having to allocate a head structure per

IMHO it seems like it would be cleaner if the pointer arithmetic was
removed and a restriction was made that each ring requires a unique head
element because it's pointer value *is* the sentinel. Then there would be
no magic about it (pun intended).

Then again I might be missing something...  :-)

But thanks for taking the time to explain it,


View raw message