Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> 
>>While not being able to comment on the actual patch I think having a 1 
>>or 0 for different types is not clear.
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's not pretty. I also hope this division to be very
> transitional, that's why I didn't bother to do anything nicer.
> 
> 
>>Naming them different struct names would seem to me much more readable.
> 
> 
> Struct names ? I'd rather not duplicate everything. Or did you mean
> initialization function names, e.g. INIT_RAW_PRIO_TREE_ROOT ?
> Or, for just the flag, maybe something like
> #define PRIO_TREE_RAW		1
> #define PRIO_TREE_NORMAL	0

Initialisation function names.

Cheers,
Con