[PATCH v3 1/2] Staging: lustre: Refactor the function interval_erase_color() in /lustre/ldlm/interval_tree.c

[Monam Agarwal]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Xiong, Jinshan <jinshan.xiong at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:56 PM, Dilger, Andreas <andreas.dilger at intel.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Staging: lustre: Refactor the function interval_erase_color() in /lustre/ldlm/interval_tree.c
>>> Date: January 11, 2014 at 1:33:58 PM MST
>>> To: Monam Agarwal <monamagarwal123 at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com>, <devel at driverdev.osuosl.org>, <andreas.dilger at intel.com>, <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr at intel.com>, <linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org>, Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:14:35PM +0530, Monam Agarwal wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:56:44PM +0530, Monam Agarwal wrote:
>>>>>> I took n as a flag to decide whether parent->in_left == node is true
>>>>>> or not in the called function.
>>>>>
>>>>> So "n" stands for "node"?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Should I use some other name for the flag.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will "flag" be a suitable name?
>
> I’d suggest `bool is_right_child’.
>
> I’ve checked the patch and it looks good. There exists a unit test case for interval tree under lustre/tests/ named it_test.c, please compile it and verify your change.
>
I am using tree from
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/.
There is no lustre/tests folder in my tree and no file named
it_test.c.
Kindly let me know the tree you are working from.

> Jinshan
>
>>>
>>> Ick, no.  You don't want a "flag" to have to determine what the logic is
>>> for a given function.  That just causes confusion and makes things
>>> really hard to read and understand over time.
>>>
>>> This whole function looks like a red/black tree, or something like that.
>>> Shouldn't we just be using the in-kernel implementation of this?  And if
>>> not, then you really need to get the feedback of the code's original
>>> authors as you might be changing the algorithm in ways that could cause
>>> big problems.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>
>> Cheers, Andreas
>> --
>> Andreas Dilger
>> Lustre Software Architect
>> Intel Corporation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>