[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FC7DCD7.6020800@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:04:23 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
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>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.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>,
Taras Glek <tgek@...illa.com>, Mike Hommey <mh@...ndium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] [RFC] Range tree implementation
On 05/31/2012 01:48 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 25-05-12 12:17:34, John Stultz wrote:
>> I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I
>> couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees
>> and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do
>> let me know if you have a better name.
> Well, interval tree is a data structure for tracking a set of
> possibly overlapping intervals. Range tree is a data structure tracking
> points allowing for fast queries on a set of points contained in a given
> range (gets useful and interesting when dimension> 1). Your data structure
> is neither so it would be good to have a different name. OTOH there are so
> many data structures that it's hard to find a reasonable unused name ;)
Although I'm not sure your interval tree description doesn't match what
I'm trying to provide. Could you clarify why that doesn't match?
>> +/**
>> + * range_tree_next_in_range - Return the next range in a range_tree still
>> + * contained within a specified range.
> 'within' isn't really correct, right? It should rather be 'intersecting'.
That is more clear, thanks for the suggestion!
>
>> + * @root: range_tree root
>> + * @start: range start
>> + * @end: range end
>> + *
>> + */
>> +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_next_in_range(struct range_tree_node *node,
>> + u64 start, u64 end)
>> +{
>> + struct rb_node *next;
>> + struct range_tree_node *candidate;
>> + if (!node)
>> + return NULL;
>> + next = rb_next(&node->rb);
>> + if (!next)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + candidate = container_of(next, struct range_tree_node, rb);
>> +
>> + if ((candidate->start> end) || (candidate->end< start))
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + return candidate;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * range_tree_add - Add a node to a range tree
>> + * @root: range tree to be added to
>> + * @node: range_tree_node to be added
>> + *
>> + * Adds a node to the range tree.
> I think you should document here that the added range must not intersect
> with any other range in the tree.
So for my usage in the volatile range code, I don't want intersecting or
overlapping ranges added, but I didn't feel it was necessary to add this
restriction to my rangetree code as well, since someone might want to
store overlapping ranges.
thanks for the review!
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists