Re: [PATCH 1/3] Range tree implementation

[Dmitry Adamushko]

Hi John,

range_tree_in_range_adjacent() is not used in your code, and it
doesn't seem to be very useful in general case. range_tree_in_range()
can do the same thing (and you use it that way in the 2nd patch) and
is more flexible (can be paired with range_tree_next_in_range()). So I
think it can be dropped altogether.

Now, I'm wondering whether it actually makes sense to make a dedicated
interface out of the remaining bits.

Almost everything is common rb_tree-handling code that can be found in
any place where rb-trees are used (hard-coded for flexibility,
performance or whatever other reasons). So my feeling is that it
should not be different here.

-- Dmitry
--
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/