Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Generic B-tree implementation | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:20:05 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:08:53 EDT, Vishal Patil said: > Agreed, however if I am not mistaken B-trees are useful even for > virtual memory implementation, for example HP-UX uses B-trees for > managing virtual memory pages.
OK, sounds at least somewhat plausible..
> Also I did not get the statement > "Build infrastructure (== library) without clear users won't go very > far on LKML"
Your patch would go a lot further if it came as 2 parts:
PATCH 1/2: Add Generic B-tree implementation PATCH 2/2: Convert mm/foobar.c to track VM pages using B-trees.
Barring an actual patch 2/2, a *clear* explanation of why it would benefit a *specific* piece of code so somebody else can do it... [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |