Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:38:16 -0300 | From | Werner Almesberger <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |