[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjectprio_tree generalization
Hi Rajesh,

I'm currently experimenting with the prio_tree code in an elevator
("IO scheduler"), and I'm thinking about a way to avoid code

The most straightforward approach seems to be to put everything
after prio_tree_init and before vma_prio_tree_add into a new file,
and #include that file. (And prio_tree_init should be shared.)

#including a .c file normally isn't exactly considered an epitome
of elegance, but in this case, there doesn't seem to be much of a

There's another issue: in the elevator, entries overlap only
rarely if at all, and it is sometimes useful to walk the tree in
sort order. As far as I can tell, RPSTs can be walked just like
RB trees if there are no overlaps on the path from the current to
the respective adjacent node.

Unfortunately, "prio_tree_next" is already taken. It would be nice
to follow the same naming scheme as RB trees, so perhaps
prio_tree_next could become prio_tree_more, or such ?

What do you think ?

- Werner

/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina /
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.024 / U:5.688 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site