Re: [RFC] Generalize prio_tree (1/3)

From: Werner Almesberger
Date: Mon Nov 15 2004 - 19:37:04 EST

Rajesh Venkatasubramanian wrote:
> Yeap. That looks sane. However, if you are planning to produce
> a patch, please consider the following names:
> struct prio_tree_node {
> unsigned long start, end;
> struct raw_prio_tree_node prio_tree_node;
> };

Okay. Any reason why you've put "start, end" before "prio_tree_node" ?
The other way around would seem to make things a lot easier.

> I think the r_index and h_index names are only meaningful in
> prio_tree.c. My guess is start and end will be more palatable
> to users of prio_tree.

Yes, they're a bit confusing :-) It would actually be nice if you
could write a little paper describing this particular type of radix
priority search tree, since it differs quite a bit from the original.
Also, the original paper is comparably difficult to obtain if you
don't have a university library at hand. Better documentation of how
prio_tree works might also encourage new uses of it.

- Werner

/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina werner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx /
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at