Re: [RFC] Generalized prio_tree, revisited
From: Werner Almesberger
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 23:46:14 EST
Rajesh Venkatasubramanian wrote:
> prio_tree_replace should be static in prio_tree.c.
Actually, no - vma_prio_tree_remove uses it too. Reverted.
> 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,
So that's a change that ought to go in before the actual split,
along with changing vma_prio_tree_next to use only prio_tree_next.
Okay, it's in my patch set, which I'll post after a bit of testing.
(Three overlapping patches, *shiver*.)
/ 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/