On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> As it stands rb_erase() isn't inlined and its rather big,
>> why would you want to inline it for augmented callers?
>
> Just as the non-augmented rb_erase() is generated (as a
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 05:31 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> --- a/lib/rbtree_test.c
>> +++ b/lib/rbtree_test.c
>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>> #include
>> #include
>> +#include
>This confuses me.. either its internal to the rb-tree
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 05:31 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> +static inline void
> +rb_erase_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root,
> + rb_augment_propagate *augment_propagate,
> + rb_augment_rotate *augment_rotate)
So why put all this in a
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 05:31 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> --- a/lib/rbtree_test.c
> +++ b/lib/rbtree_test.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> #include
> #include
> +#include
This confuses me.. either its internal to the rb-tree implementation and
users don't need to see it, or its not in which case
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 05:31 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
--- a/lib/rbtree_test.c
+++ b/lib/rbtree_test.c
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
#include linux/module.h
#include linux/rbtree.h
+#include linux/rbtree_internal.h
This confuses me.. either its internal to the rb-tree implementation and
users
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 05:31 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
+static inline void
+rb_erase_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root,
+ rb_augment_propagate *augment_propagate,
+ rb_augment_rotate *augment_rotate)
So why put all this in a static
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 05:31 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
--- a/lib/rbtree_test.c
+++ b/lib/rbtree_test.c
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
#include linux/module.h
#include linux/rbtree.h
+#include linux/rbtree_internal.h
This
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Michel Lespinasse wal...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
As it stands rb_erase() isn't inlined and its rather big,
why would you want to inline it for augmented callers?
Just as the non-augmented
On 07/23/2012 09:54 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
Add an augmented tree rotation callback to __rb_erase_color(), so that
augmented tree information can be maintained while rebalancing.
Also introduce rb_erase_augmented(), which is a version of rb_erase()
with augmented tree callbacks. We need
On 07/23/2012 09:54 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
Add an augmented tree rotation callback to __rb_erase_color(), so that
augmented tree information can be maintained while rebalancing.
Also introduce rb_erase_augmented(), which is a version of rb_erase()
with augmented tree callbacks. We need
Add an augmented tree rotation callback to __rb_erase_color(), so that
augmented tree information can be maintained while rebalancing.
Also introduce rb_erase_augmented(), which is a version of rb_erase()
with augmented tree callbacks. We need three callbacks here: one to
copy the subtree's
Add an augmented tree rotation callback to __rb_erase_color(), so that
augmented tree information can be maintained while rebalancing.
Also introduce rb_erase_augmented(), which is a version of rb_erase()
with augmented tree callbacks. We need three callbacks here: one to
copy the subtree's
Add an augmented tree rotation callback to __rb_erase_color(), so that
augmented tree information can be maintained while rebalancing.
Also introduce rb_erase_augmented(), which is a version of rb_erase()
with augmented tree callbacks. We need two callbacks here: one to propagate
the augmented
Add an augmented tree rotation callback to __rb_erase_color(), so that
augmented tree information can be maintained while rebalancing.
Also introduce rb_erase_augmented(), which is a version of rb_erase()
with augmented tree callbacks. We need two callbacks here: one to propagate
the augmented
14 matches
Mail list logo
