On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:14:35PM +0530, Monam Agarwal wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:56:44PM +0530, Monam Agarwal wrote: > >> I took n as a flag to decide whether parent->in_left == node is true > >> or not in the called function. > > > > So "n" stands for "node"? > > > >> Should I use some other name for the flag. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Will "flag" be a suitable name? Ick, no. You don't want a "flag" to have to determine what the logic is for a given function. That just causes confusion and makes things really hard to read and understand over time. This whole function looks like a red/black tree, or something like that. Shouldn't we just be using the in-kernel implementation of this? And if not, then you really need to get the feedback of the code's original authors as you might be changing the algorithm in ways that could cause big problems. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
