[Crash-utility] Adding a new command rbtree

[Wen Congyang]

At 2012/5/9 21:25, Dave Anderson Wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Hello HATAYAMA,
>>
>> I am trying to add a new command can be used to display rbtree and
>> radix tree. After some investigation, I find they are similar to the
>> build-in command "list". So I send this mail to ask your opinion about
>> making cmd_list to be similar to the command "struct/union/*".
>
> Having radix_tree and rbtree enumerators is a good idea.
>
> But before you get started, please do *not* pollute the cmd_list()
> function with these two facilities.  Make it a separate command
> ("tree" perhaps?) that can branch and handle the two different
> tree types.
>
> It would also be helpful if the interfaces could be made available for
> use by other commands, i.e., similar to the way that the "irq" command
> uses the do_radix_tree() function in filesys.c, or the way that do_list()
> is used by cmd_list(), but is also available as a general purpose function
> for other commands.

Hmm, the interfaces is made available for use by other commands,
do you mean that the new command(tree?) can be a built-in command?

Thanks
Wen Congyang

>
> Dave
>
>>
>> Another thing needed to be inquired is about the style of displaying
>> tree. I will list some of my thought, and some suggestion will be
>> glad
>> to get from you.
>>
>> 1.
>> NODE ... : ...
>>     NODE ... : ...
>>       NODE ... : ...
>>         NODE ... : ...
>>       NODE ... : ...
>>     NODE ... : ...
>>
>> This style can not indicate whether the leaf is left or right. And
>> with
>> a big depth, the output may be ugly. So I do not like it.
>>
>> 2.
>> l - left child
>> r - right child
>>
>> root NODE ... : ...
>> l    NODE ... : ...
>> ll   NODE ... : ...
>> lll  NODE ... : ...
>> lr   NODE ... : ...
>> r    NODE ... : ...
>>
>> Of course, in radix tree, l&  r will be changed to some string that
>> can
>> indicate the child of a node. Still, with a big depth, the line will
>> be
>> too long and ugly.
>>
>> 3.
>> root    NODE addr1 : ...
>> addr1 l NODE addr2 : ...
>> addr2 l NODE addr3 : ...
>> addr3 l NODE addr4 : ...
>> addr2 r NODE addr5 : ...
>> addr1 r NODE addr6 : ...
>>
>> (l&  r have the same meaning with the one in the 2.)
>>
>> Surely, I prefer the the third one. What do you think? Or eliminating
>> the information indicating position is acceptable?
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Regards
>> Qiao Nuohan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Crash-utility mailing list
>> Crash-utility at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
>>
>
> --
> Crash-utility mailing list
> Crash-utility at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
>