Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:35:15 -0300 | From | Werner Almesberger <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Generalize prio_tree (1/3) |
| |
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@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |