Re: [PATCH 05/13] rbtree: performance and correctness test

[Daniel Santos]

On 07/11/2012 01:14 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:35:15 +0200, Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +       u32 prev_key = 0;
>>> +
>>> +       for (rb = rb_first(&root); rb; rb = rb_next(rb)) {
>>> +               struct test_node *node = rb_entry(rb, struct test_node,
>>> rb);
>>> +               WARN_ON_ONCE(node->key < prev_key);
>> What if for some reason we generate node with key equal zero or two keys
>> with the same value?  It may not be the case for current code, but someone
>> might change it in the future.  I think <= is safer here.
> No, it's not illegal for two nodes to have the same key; the second
> one to be inserted will just get placed after the first one. The
> rbtree library doesn't care either way as it's not even aware of the
> key values :)
Right.  This is strictly a function of your insert function. In my
generic rbtree patch set, there is a concept of unique or non-unique
keys, but this doesn't exist in the rbtree library its self.
--
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/