Re: [RFC] Generalized prio_tree, revisited

[Werner Almesberger]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> While not being able to comment on the actual patch I think having a 1 
> or 0 for different types is not clear.

Yeah, it's not pretty. I also hope this division to be very
transitional, that's why I didn't bother to do anything nicer.

> Naming them different struct names would seem to me much more readable.

Struct names ? I'd rather not duplicate everything. Or did you mean
initialization function names, e.g. INIT_RAW_PRIO_TREE_ROOT ?
Or, for just the flag, maybe something like
#define PRIO_TREE_RAW		1
#define PRIO_TREE_NORMAL	0
?

- 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/