From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266173AbUGZXhO (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:37:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266177AbUGZXhO (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:37:14 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:34961 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266173AbUGZXhC (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:37:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:35:33 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Rajesh Venkatasubramanian Cc: oleg@tv-sign.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hugh@veritas.com, torvalds@osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] prio_tree iterator cleanup. Message-Id: <20040726163533.6f2fe0fa.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <41027815.94F9D9AC@tv-sign.ru> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rajesh Venkatasubramanian wrote: > > I have gone through all the 3 prio_tree patches you have sent > over the last few weeks. Your 2nd (kill vma_prio_tree_init) and > 3rd (iterator cleanup) patches look straight-forward. > > I agree that vm_set.head linking is ugly. Your 1st patch > attempts to simplify it and removes few lines of code. However, > your 1st patch is intrusive and I am not convinced that it > improves the code very much. > > If you can post your 2nd and 3rd patches independent of your > first patch, that will be great. Please covert vma_prio_tree_next > in arch/* directories if you plan to post a new version of your > 3rd patch. > > Overall I am inclined to leave the prio_tree code as it is. > However, your 2nd and 3rd patches are quiet straight-forward > and I am okay with them. Thanks, Rajesh. Oleg, I didn't apply any patches in this area. Please reissue any prio-tree patches from scratch. Thanks.