Messages in this thread | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three | Date | Thu, 17 May 2007 21:00:44 -0400 |
| |
On May 17, 2007, at 13:45:33, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:26:07PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt > (jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de) wrote: >>> My plan was to move this code to lib/ sooner or later. If you >>> consider it useful in its current state, I can do it immediatly. >>> And if someone else merged a superior btree library I'd happily >>> remove mine and use the new one instead. >>> >>> Opinions? >> >> Why would we need another btree, when there is lib/rbtree.c? Or >> does yours do something fundamentally different? > > It is not red-black tree, it is b+ tree.
It might be better to use the prefix "bptree" to help prevent confusion. A quick google search on "bp-tree" reveals only the perl B +-tree module "Tree::BPTree", a U-Maryland Java CS project on B+- trees, and a news article about a "BP tree-top protest".
Cheers, Kyle Moffett
- 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/
| |