On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 00:48 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:13 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:11 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote: > > > P SL > > > / \ / \ > > > N S ---> N S > > > / / \ / \ > > > C SL SR C SR > > > > > > If P needs to be removed, we need to re-augment S also in this case, > > > right? It looks like we are not handling this case. > > > > > > rb_augment_erase_begin(P) will return S if I read the code right, so > > rb_augment_path(S) will the re-augment S, SL, N. > > To be more explicit: P has two children, so we select the next entry, > SL, as its substitute. Since SL doesn't have a right child we select its > parent, S. > > If SL were to represent a subtree with a right child, then we'd select > that, lets call it SLR. SLR would then end up being a direct descendant > of S, and hence rb_augment_path(SLR) would still pass S on its way up. Yep. I missed the rb_parent() part in the rb_augment_erase_begin(). Thanks. Acked-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|