Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:15:17 -0300 | From | Werner Almesberger <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Generalized prio_tree, revisited |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > While not being able to comment on the actual patch I think having a 1 > or 0 for different types is not clear.
Yeah, it's not pretty. I also hope this division to be very transitional, that's why I didn't bother to do anything nicer.
> Naming them different struct names would seem to me much more readable.
Struct names ? I'd rather not duplicate everything. Or did you mean initialization function names, e.g. INIT_RAW_PRIO_TREE_ROOT ? Or, for just the flag, maybe something like #define PRIO_TREE_RAW 1 #define PRIO_TREE_NORMAL 0 ?
- 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/
| |