Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] Btrfs: rework ulist with list+rb_tree

[Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>]

On 01/25/2014 01:59 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
> We are really suffering from now ulist's implementation, some developers
> gave their try, and i just gave some of my ideas for things:
>
>   1. use list+rb_tree instead of arrary+rb_tree
>
>   2. add cur_list to iterator rather than ulist structure.
>
>   3. add seqnum into every node when they are added, this is
>   used to do selfcheck when iterating node.
>
> I noticed Zach Brown's comments before, long term is to kick off
> ulist implementation, however, for now, we need at least avoid
> arrary from ulist.
>
> Cc: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
> Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
> Cc: Zach Brown <zab@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---

I like it, can we use CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG or whatever it's called for the 
seqnum check to make the struct a bit smaller in the normal case?  Thanks,

Josef