Re: [PATCH 1/3] Range tree implementation

[John Stultz]

On 04/25/2012 05:16 AM, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. I actually at one point meant to do this and forgot. Thanks for 
pointing it out!

> 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.
Sorry, not sure I quite understand what you're suggesting. Are you 
saying it doesn't make sense to have a generic range tree 
implementation, since really its just a small shim over the rbtree 
code?  So instead range-tree users should just implment them 
themselves?  Or something else?

thanks
-john

--
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/