Re: [patch 1/1] uml-update-2.6.8-finish

[Jeff Dike]

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 05:40:12PM +0200, BlaisorBlade wrote:
> And making it compile with the hash code, rather than the rb_tree one? I know
> ghash.h must be removed, but there is no reason at all to switch to Red-Black
> trees. 

It is not just that ghash.h be removed.  It is that its contents have
to vanish.  That code shouldn't be anywhere.

There are good reasons to switch to rbtrees -
	I need some sort of low-O lookup
	there is no generic hash tree in the kernel
	rbtree is O(lg n) and it's generic
	rbtree is the only generic low-O lookup in the kernel that I see

I'm not in the fancy data structure business, so I'll stick with the
infrastructure that I find in the pool already, and rbtree is about it.

> Even because, later, we will just see "Hey, I get a panic here" + 
> backtrace. 

No, because currently there are no users of this.  We can get this tested
when UML starts mmapping into its page cache.

> Doing things right in first place is better.

And inlining the grunge is right?

				Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/