linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] B+Tree library

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:29:22 +0100
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] B+Tree library

On Fri, 31 October 2008 14:16:14 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 
> > +static inline size_t btree_visitorl(struct btree_headl *head, long opaque,
> > +		visitorl_t func2)
> > +{
> > +	return btree_visitor(&head->h, &btree_geo32, opaque, visitorl, func2);
> > +}
> 
> Incidentally, do you think it would be possible to implement a kind of 
> 
> btree_for_each_entry(e, ...) {
> 	do something with e
> }
> 
> macro or function/macro combination? You seem to be doing a recursive
> walk across the tree, would it be useful to have a linked list at the
> lowest level of nodes to be able to iterate more easily?

Maybe.  On the whole, I've tried hard not to optimize much.  The idea
was that a simple design can still receive some fundamental changes.
But once a number of neat tricks like a linked list at the lowest level
are used, the code becomes more resistent to changes.

That being said, the maze of function pointer around btree_visitor()
does not make me very proud.  Might be worth it.

Jörn

-- 
Prosperity makes friends, adversity tries them.
-- Publilius Syrus
--
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/