lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Generalized prio_tree, revisited
    Rajesh Venkatasubramanian wrote:
    > I wonder whether we should use [start, last]

    Yes, good idea. I've changed it in my tree.

    > prio_tree_replace should be static in prio_tree.c.

    Indeed. Thanks !

    > > +struct prio_tree_node *prio_tree_first(struct prio_tree_iter *iter);
    >
    > 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,
    > though.

    You mean to roll prio_tree_first and prio_tree_iter_init into a
    single call, so that prio_tree_first would look similar to the
    one in 2.6.7 ?

    > > +static void get_index(const struct prio_tree_root *root,
    >
    > Should be "inline" ?

    That's of course what we hope to happen, but I'd leave the inlining
    decision to the compiler. After all, it's supposed to be really
    good at such things nowadays ;-)

    Thanks,
    - Werner

    --
    _________________________________________________________________________
    / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina werner@almesberger.net /
    /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:4.298 / U:0.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site