[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:0.019 / U:7.456 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site