Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:48:15 -0500 (EST) | From | Rajesh Venkatasubramanian <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Generalize prio_tree (1/3) |
| |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Rajesh Venkatasubramanian wrote: > > Yeap. That looks sane. However, if you are planning to produce > > a patch, please consider the following names: > > > > struct prio_tree_node { > > unsigned long start, end; > > struct raw_prio_tree_node prio_tree_node; > > }; > > Okay. Any reason why you've put "start, end" before "prio_tree_node" ? > The other way around would seem to make things a lot easier.
I don't have any reason. I am okay with either.
> > I think the r_index and h_index names are only meaningful in > > prio_tree.c. My guess is start and end will be more palatable > > to users of prio_tree. > > Yes, they're a bit confusing :-) It would actually be nice if you > could write a little paper describing this particular type of radix > priority search tree, since it differs quite a bit from the original. > Also, the original paper is comparably difficult to obtain if you > don't have a university library at hand. Better documentation of how > prio_tree works might also encourage new uses of it.
I have already started doing that. Please check Documentation/prio_tree.txt in 2.6.10-rc2. The document can be improved a lot, but for now it tries to explain the differences from the original paper. Yes. I got a copy of the original paper from my university library, there are no digital copies available.
Rajesh - 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/
| |