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 <>
To:	Johannes Berg <>
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.


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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists