[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47E8DBBE.4030607@mev.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:02:22 +0000
From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>
To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Corrections to Documentation/rbtree.txt
On 20/03/08 18:39, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 20 March 2008 10:29:57 Ian Abbott wrote:
>> From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>
>>
>> The description of the rb_entry() macro in Documentation/rbtree.txt seems
>> incorrect. This patch improves it (hopefully). Also I changed the example
>> code to call the previous 'my_search()' example instead of an undefined
>> 'mysearch()'.
>
> I have no objection to the patch (and the my_search thing seems like an
> obvious typo), but is there a reason to prefer rb_entry() rather than
> container_of()? If so, the rationale might be a good thing to add to the
> documentation...
I don't know the rationale, but all the code I can see uses rb_entry()
and not container_of(). The only rationale I can think of is that it
abstracts away from the nodes being embedded in the data a little bit.
(But not by much - in particular, an implementation of rb trees that
stored data in the node explicitly would only need a single parameter in
its rb_entry() accessor. I like the approach taken in
include/linux/elevator.h that uses the rb_entry() macro to create a
specialized accessor macro (rb_entry_rq()) with a single parameter.
--
-=( Ian Abbott @ MEV Ltd. E-mail: <abbotti@....co.uk> )=-
-=( Tel: +44 (0)161 477 1898 FAX: +44 (0)161 718 3587 )=-
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists