> list_sort() uses merge sort, which has O(nlog(n)) complexity; > list_sort() also suffers from "list passed to list_sort() too long for > efficiency". But in practice I'm not sure how long a list needs to be > to hit that case. > > Whereas an rb-tree has O(log(n)) complexity and is efficient for > traversal, it also doesn't have the length limits. I see. OK, I will remain on rb-tree. Btw, if I want to disable sorting 1. Always attach new node to the left 2. Eliminate rb_insert_color() is enough? -- Akira -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
