On 07/29/2013 08:01 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 02:13:39PM -0700, Cody P Schafer wrote:diff --git a/lib/rbtree.c b/lib/rbtree.c index c0e31fe..65f4eff 100644 --- a/lib/rbtree.c +++ b/lib/rbtree.c @@ -518,3 +518,43 @@ void rb_replace_node(struct rb_node *victim, struct rb_node *new, *new = *victim; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(rb_replace_node); + +static struct rb_node *rb_left_deepest_node(const struct rb_node *node) +{ + for (;;) { + if (node->rb_left) + node = node->rb_left;Assigning to an argument passed as const seems weird to me. I would think it shouldn't compile but it does. I guess my understanding of const is incomplete.
Ya, that is due to const's binding: const struct rb_node *node1; // the thing pointed to is const const struct rb_node node2; // node is const struct rb_node *const node3; // node is const const struct rb_node *const node4; // both node and the thing // pointed too are const And so ends up being perfectly legal (I use the first case listed here).
+ else if (node->rb_right) + node = node->rb_right; + else + return (struct rb_node *)node; + } +} + +struct rb_node *rb_next_postorder(const struct rb_node *node) +{ + const struct rb_node *parent; + if (!node) + return NULL; + parent = rb_parent(node);Again here. Seth
-- 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>