Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:30:30 -0500 | From | Daniel Santos <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/13] rbtree: performance and correctness test |
| |
On 07/11/2012 01:14 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:35:15 +0200, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote: >>> + u32 prev_key = 0; >>> + >>> + for (rb = rb_first(&root); rb; rb = rb_next(rb)) { >>> + struct test_node *node = rb_entry(rb, struct test_node, >>> rb); >>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(node->key < prev_key); >> What if for some reason we generate node with key equal zero or two keys >> with the same value? It may not be the case for current code, but someone >> might change it in the future. I think <= is safer here. > No, it's not illegal for two nodes to have the same key; the second > one to be inserted will just get placed after the first one. The > rbtree library doesn't care either way as it's not even aware of the > key values :) Right. This is strictly a function of your insert function. In my generic rbtree patch set, there is a concept of unique or non-unique keys, but this doesn't exist in the rbtree library its self.
| |