lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-11 23:01    [W:0.067 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site