Re: [RFC] Generalized prio_tree, revisited
From: Werner Almesberger
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 14:40:02 EST
Rajesh Venkatasubramanian wrote:
> I wonder whether we should use [start, last]
Yes, good idea. I've changed it in my tree.
> prio_tree_replace should be static in prio_tree.c.
Indeed. Thanks !
> > +struct prio_tree_node *prio_tree_first(struct prio_tree_iter *iter);
> Should we go with prio_tree_iter_init and remove prio_tree_first
> (similar to vma_prio_tree_next) ? I am not very particular about it,
You mean to roll prio_tree_first and prio_tree_iter_init into a
single call, so that prio_tree_first would look similar to the
one in 2.6.7 ?
> > +static void get_index(const struct prio_tree_root *root,
> Should be "inline" ?
That's of course what we hope to happen, but I'd leave the inlining
decision to the compiler. After all, it's supposed to be really
good at such things nowadays ;-)
/ 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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/