| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6599ad830806210029x2a020e1ava6b646be9913fcdf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:29:41 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> To: "Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Priority heap infrastructure enhancements On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Some of the common code has been factored into heap_adjust() a.k.a heapify > in data structures terminology. > > I am sending out this patch indepedent of the memory controller changes as > they deserve to be reviewed independently. > > One limitation of the current heap_insert() routine is that it does not > insert an element which is greater than the root, when the heap slots > are fully used. I'll work on and review that interface and find a suitable > way to address that issue How else would you want it to behave? If you have a fixed size heap and it's full, then you have to drop the largest value. (Well, you could in theory drop the smallest value, but there's no quick way to find that.) > > Comments, Flames? Please do review closely! > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Looks fine. Reviewed-by: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> Paul -- 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