linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Range tree implementation

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

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

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

Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:19:48 -0700
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
	Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Andrea Righi <andrea@...terlinux.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Range tree implementation

On 04/25/2012 05:16 AM, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> range_tree_in_range_adjacent() is not used in your code, and it
> doesn't seem to be very useful in general case. range_tree_in_range()
> can do the same thing (and you use it that way in the 2nd patch) and
> is more flexible (can be paired with range_tree_next_in_range()). So I
> think it can be dropped altogether.

Agreed. I actually at one point meant to do this and forgot. Thanks for 
pointing it out!

> Now, I'm wondering whether it actually makes sense to make a dedicated
> interface out of the remaining bits.
>
> Almost everything is common rb_tree-handling code that can be found in
> any place where rb-trees are used (hard-coded for flexibility,
> performance or whatever other reasons). So my feeling is that it
> should not be different here.
>
Sorry, not sure I quite understand what you're suggesting. Are you 
saying it doesn't make sense to have a generic range tree 
implementation, since really its just a small shim over the rbtree 
code?  So instead range-tree users should just implment them 
themselves?  Or something else?

thanks
-john

--
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/