Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Shrink rbtree | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:38:59 +0100 |
| |
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 14:29 +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote: > Yes, but please make it a common helper, since there is a real need > for it and code has to agree on the dirty hacks it uses :-)
Is there a real need for it? It's all just paranoid debugging checks, isn't it? If there's a _real_ need for marking an object as being inactive because it can be reached through some means other than the rbtree, then that arguably lives in the higher-level object itself, not its rb_node.
I'm reluctant to 'bless' this practice, because we'll then get asked to set it to 'inactive' every time we take a node off the tree, to have a BUG_ON() which checks it in certain places, etc.... it's mostly pointless AFAICT.
-- dwmw2
- 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/
| |