From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1L9bVB-0002NH-Jz for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:30:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI WL-Subsystem: Improvement in prot tree From: Artem Bityutskiy To: xiaochuan-xu In-Reply-To: <1228724140.2694.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1228724140.2694.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:27:39 +0200 Message-Id: <1228724859.13686.92.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, you are back. I thought you had disappeared forever and removed your git tree from my home last week, sorry. I'll create it soon and will take a look at your patch, thanks. On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 16:15 +0800, xiaochuan-xu wrote: > Hi, all. >=20 > A new PEB protection method in UBI WL-Subsystem is implemented, > It's simpler and higher efficiency than the older prot RB-tree, I think. >=20 > 1. without two prot RB-tree, there is only one prot array, But their > functions are the same. >=20 > 2. no other structure needed except @ubi_wl_entry ubi_wl_prot_entry is > discarded. and we need not malloc new struct every time in > ubi_wl_get_peb() function. >=20 > 3. protarray add and del operation are O(1) operations, and check over > opteration is O(n), which is better then the older prot RB-tree > implement. --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)