On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 05:31 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> +static void augment_rotate(struct rb_node *rb_old, struct rb_node *rb_new)
>> +{
>> + struct test_node *old = rb_entry(rb_old, struct test_node, rb);
>> + struct test_node *new = rb_entry(rb_new, struct test_node, rb);
>> +
>> + /* Rotation doesn't change subtree's augmented value */
>> + new->augmented = old->augmented;
>> + old->augmented = augment_recompute(old);
>> +}
>
>> +static inline void augment_propagate(struct rb_node *rb)
>> +{
>> + while (rb) {
>> + struct test_node *node = rb_entry(rb, struct test_node, rb);
>> + node->augmented = augment_recompute(node);
>> + rb = rb_parent(&node->rb);
>> + }
>> +}
>
> So why do we have to introduce these two new function pointers to pass
> along when they can both be trivially expressed in the old single
> augment function?
Its because augment_rotate() needs to be a static function that we can
take the address of and pass along as a callback to the tree
rebalancing functions, while augment_propagate() needs to be an inline
function that gets compiled within an __rb_erase() variant for a given
type of augmented rbtree.
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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>