Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:19:48 -0700 | From | John Stultz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Range tree implementation |
| |
On 04/25/2012 05:16 AM, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Hi John, > > range_tree_in_range_adjacent() is not used in your code, and it > doesn't seem to be very useful in general case. range_tree_in_range() > can do the same thing (and you use it that way in the 2nd patch) and > is more flexible (can be paired with range_tree_next_in_range()). So I > think it can be dropped altogether.
Agreed. I actually at one point meant to do this and forgot. Thanks for pointing it out!
> Now, I'm wondering whether it actually makes sense to make a dedicated > interface out of the remaining bits. > > Almost everything is common rb_tree-handling code that can be found in > any place where rb-trees are used (hard-coded for flexibility, > performance or whatever other reasons). So my feeling is that it > should not be different here. > Sorry, not sure I quite understand what you're suggesting. Are you saying it doesn't make sense to have a generic range tree implementation, since really its just a small shim over the rbtree code? So instead range-tree users should just implment them themselves? Or something else?
thanks -john
| |