Re: [PATCH 1/3] Range tree implementation

[Dmitry Adamushko]

>> [ ... ]
>>
>> 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?

Exactly. It's not much different from other rbtree
search-insert-delete implementations out there.

What are the generic use cases that we want to support with this interface?

Is the current notion of the 'overlapping range' as taken by
range_tree_in_range() common enough? What if another use-case requires
_only_ the ranges that are strictly inside the [ start, end ] range?
In this case, we might be better off sticking to the same
'implement-your-own-search' approach taken by the generic rbtree
interface.

-- 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/