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:1.048 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site