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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
