* Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Interval rb-tree allows to directly store interval ranges
> and quickly lookup an overlap with a single point or a range.
>
> The helper is based on the kernel rb-tree implementation
> (located in <linux/rbtree.h>) which alows for the augmention
> of the classical rb-tree to be used as an interval tree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/kvm/Makefile | 1 +
> tools/kvm/include/kvm/interval-rbtree.h | 27 +++++++++
> tools/kvm/util/interval-rbtree.c | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Small nit, please make it rbtree-interval.c - we try to name by using the
higher-order (more generic) concept first.
So we name in a galaxy_planet_country_city_street hierarchical fashion, not in
a street_city_country_planet_galaxy Polish fashion. This applies to function
names as well.
> +struct rb_int_node {
> + struct rb_node node;
> + u64 low;
> + u64 high;
> +
> + /* max_high will store the highest high of it's 2 children. */
> + u64 max_high;
> +};
Another small nit: please align the fields vertically, like we do it for all
other structs.
> +#include <kvm/interval-rbtree.h>
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
At first sight i dont think you really need the stdio.h and stlib.h includes -
you added these while having debugging printfs in the code?
> +#define RB_INT(n) container_of(n, struct rb_int_node, node)
please use a name that matches the kernel's rb entry definition:
#define rb_entry(ptr, type, member) container_of(ptr, type, member)
i.e. lower-case and something like:
#define rb_int_entry(ptr) container_of(ptr, struct rb_int_node, node)
But it could also be shortened to rb_int() like you did - as long as it does
not shout at us in all capitals :-)
> +struct rb_int_node *rb_int_search_single(struct rb_root *root, u64 p)
What does 'p' mean here? Please use more descriptive (but still short) names.
> +{
> + struct rb_node *node = root->rb_node;
> + struct rb_node *lowest = NULL;
> +
> + while (node) {
> + struct rb_int_node *cur = RB_INT(node);
> + struct rb_int_node *left;
> + if (node->rb_left)
newline after local variable definitions please, so that it stands out better
visually.
> + return container_of(lowest, struct rb_int_node, node);
Using the new definition above this could be written as rb_int(lowest) i guess?
> +static void update_node_max_high(struct rb_node *node, void *arg)
> +{
> + u64 high_left = 0, high_right = 0;
> + struct rb_int_node *data = RB_INT(node);
> +
> + if (node->rb_left)
> + high_left = RB_INT(node->rb_left)->high;
> + if (node->rb_right)
> + high_right = RB_INT(node->rb_right)->high;
> +
> + data->max_high = (high_left > high_right) ? high_left : high_right;
that's
data->max_high = max(high_left, high_right);
correct?
> + if (data->max_high < RB_INT(node)->high)
> + data->max_high = RB_INT(node)->high;
and that is:
data->max_high = max(data->max_high, RB_INT(node)->high);
right?
so writing:
data->max_high = max(high_left, high_right);
data->max_high = max(data->max_high, rb_int(node)->high);
makes it more obvious that we are really just tracking a maximum of 3 possibilities here.
In fact it could be all written as just a simple:
static void update_node_max_high(struct rb_node *node, void *arg)
{
struct rb_int_node *i_node = rb_int(node);
i_node->max_high = i_node->high;
if (node->rb_left)
i_node->max_high = max(rb_int(node->rb_left)->high, i_node->max_high);
if (node->rb_right)
i_node->max_high = max(rb_int(node->rb_right)->high, i_node->max_high);
Which is even more obvious.
Note that i renamed 'data' to 'i_node' - it's much better to use a descriptive
name for local variables not some opaque 'data' which could be anything.
> +int rb_int_insert(struct rb_root *root, struct rb_int_node *data)
i'd suggest to rename 'data' to i_node in other places as well. Here we'd want
to use the name i_node_root i suspect.
(Note, naming it 'inode' would suck for us kernel developers :-)
> + struct rb_node **new = &(root->rb_node), *parent = NULL;
> +
> + while (*new) {
> + struct rb_int_node *this = RB_INT(*new);
So the rb-node iterator is named 'new', while the rb-int-node iterator is
called 'this'? That does not make sense.
Please name them in a matching way: 'node' for the rb iterator, 'i_node' for
the rb-int iterator, or so.
> + int result = data->low - this->low;
and then this would look like:
> + int result = i_node_root->low - i_node->low;
which suddenly gains semantic meaning even if all you see is this single line!
That is what proper naming allows.
> +
> + parent = *new;
> + if (result < 0)
> + new = &((*new)->rb_left);
> + else if (result > 0)
> + new = &((*new)->rb_right);
> + else
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + rb_link_node(&data->node, parent, new);
> + rb_insert_color(&data->node, root);
> +
> + rb_augment_insert(*new, update_node_max_high, NULL);
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> +void rb_int_erase(struct rb_root *root, struct rb_int_node *node)
> +{
> + struct rb_node *deepest;
> +
> + deepest = rb_augment_erase_begin(&node->node);
> + rb_erase(&node->node, root);
> + rb_augment_erase_end(deepest, update_node_max_high, NULL);
> +
> +}
Nit: superfluous newline at the end of the function.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
