Re: [RFC] Generalize prio_tree (1/3)

[Werner Almesberger]

Rajesh Venkatasubramanian wrote:
> Yeap. That looks sane. However, if you are planning to produce
> a patch, please consider the following names:
> 
> 	struct prio_tree_node {
> 		unsigned long start, end;
> 		struct raw_prio_tree_node prio_tree_node;
> 	};

Okay. Any reason why you've put "start, end" before "prio_tree_node" ?
The other way around would seem to make things a lot easier.

> I think the r_index and h_index names are only meaningful in
> prio_tree.c. My guess is start and end will be more palatable
> to users of prio_tree.

Yes, they're a bit confusing :-) It would actually be nice if you
could write a little paper describing this particular type of radix
priority search tree, since it differs quite a bit from the original.
Also, the original paper is comparably difficult to obtain if you
don't have a university library at hand. Better documentation of how
prio_tree works might also encourage new uses of it.

Thanks,
- Werner

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________________
 / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina     werner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
-
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/