Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Staging: lustre: Refactor the functioninterval_erase_color() in /lustre/ldlm/interval_tree.c

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:14:35PM +0530, Monam Agarwal wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:56:44PM +0530, Monam Agarwal wrote:
> >> I took n as a flag to decide whether parent->in_left == node is true
> >> or not in the called function.
> >
> > So "n" stands for "node"?
> >
> >> Should I use some other name for the flag.
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> 
> Will "flag" be a suitable name?

Ick, no.  You don't want a "flag" to have to determine what the logic is
for a given function.  That just causes confusion and makes things
really hard to read and understand over time.

This whole function looks like a red/black tree, or something like that.
Shouldn't we just be using the in-kernel implementation of this?  And if
not, then you really need to get the feedback of the code's original
authors as you might be changing the algorithm in ways that could cause
big problems.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/