On Fri, 09 Jun 2017, Jan Kara wrote:
Looks good to me. Just one nit below:
Thanks for having a look!
@@ -150,6 +161,7 @@ extern void __rb_erase_color(struct rb_node *parent, struct rb_root *root, static __always_inline struct rb_node * __rb_erase_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root, + struct rb_node **leftmost, const struct rb_augment_callbacks *augment) { struct rb_node *child = node->rb_right; @@ -157,6 +169,9 @@ __rb_erase_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root, struct rb_node *parent, *rebalance; unsigned long pc; + if (leftmost && node == *leftmost) + *leftmost = rb_next(node); + if (!tmp) { /* * Case 1: node to erase has no more than 1 child (easy!)Why do you propagate e.g. 'leftmost' down to __rb_erase_augmented() when you could just handle everything within rb_erase_augmented_cached? Similarly for other functions like __rb_insert()... It would seem like less churn and I don't see downside to it...
I propagate args so we don't have to duplicate the checks between the regular and augmented rbtrees. Thanks, Davidlohr
