On 30-09-2006 21:23, Ismail Donmez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With commit 10fd48f2376db52f08bf0420d2c4f580e39269e1 [1] , RB_EMPTY_NODE
> changed behaviour so it returns false when the node is empty as expected.
...
> - if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(rb)) {
> + if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(rb)) {
Maybe you have some kind of agreement with Jens Axboe but I
can't understand current way of kernel cooperation:
he changes some global behavior to the opposite and fixes
his code in three places but can't fix it in the fourth place
where it's used? Isn't it both trivial and automatic kind
of patch?
Second question is this title alarming enough?:
"[PATCH] rbtree: fixed reversed RB_EMPTY_NODE and rb_next/prev"
Maybe:
[PATCH] rbtree: reversed RB_EMPTY_NODE and fixed rb_next/prev
but shouldn't there be some special [XYZ!] keyword used for
such severe situations?
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
