On 07/11/2012 01:14 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:35:15 +0200, Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> + u32 prev_key = 0;
>>> +
>>> + for (rb = rb_first(&root); rb; rb = rb_next(rb)) {
>>> + struct test_node *node = rb_entry(rb, struct test_node,
>>> rb);
>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(node->key < prev_key);
>> What if for some reason we generate node with key equal zero or two keys
>> with the same value? It may not be the case for current code, but someone
>> might change it in the future. I think <= is safer here.
> No, it's not illegal for two nodes to have the same key; the second
> one to be inserted will just get placed after the first one. The
> rbtree library doesn't care either way as it's not even aware of the
> key values :)
Right. This is strictly a function of your insert function. In my
generic rbtree patch set, there is a concept of unique or non-unique
keys, but this doesn't exist in the rbtree library its self.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>