Re: [PATCH] Shrink rbtree

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 14:29 +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> Yes, but please make it a common helper, since there is a real need
> for it and code has to agree on the dirty hacks it uses :-)

Is there a real need for it? It's all just paranoid debugging checks,
isn't it? If there's a _real_ need for marking an object as being
inactive because it can be reached through some means other than the
rbtree, then that arguably lives in the higher-level object itself, not
its rb_node.

I'm reluctant to 'bless' this practice, because we'll then get asked to
set it to 'inactive' every time we take a node off the tree, to have a
BUG_ON() which checks it in certain places, etc.... it's mostly
pointless AFAICT.

-- 
dwmw2