Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261225AbVAWEsT (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:48:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261224AbVAWEsT (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:48:19 -0500 Received: from colin2.muc.de ([193.149.48.15]:18439 "HELO colin2.muc.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261221AbVAWEqk (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:46:40 -0500 Date: 23 Jan 2005 05:46:37 +0100 Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:46:37 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Jesper Juhl Cc: Felipe Alfaro Solana , Trond Myklebust , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Buck Huppmann , Neil Brown , Andreas Gruenbacher , "Andries E. Brouwer" , Andrew Morton , Olaf Kirch Subject: Re: [patch 1/13] Qsort Message-ID: <20050123044637.GA54433@muc.de> References: <20050122203326.402087000@blunzn.suse.de> <20050122203618.962749000@blunzn.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 831 Lines: 17 > How about a shell sort? if the data is mostly sorted shell sort beats > qsort lots of times, and since the data sets are often small in-kernel, > shell sorts O(n^2) behaviour won't harm it too much, shell sort is also > faster if the data is already completely sorted. Shell sort is certainly > not the simplest algorithm around, but I think (without having done any > tests) that it would probably do pretty well for in-kernel use... Then > again, I've known to be wrong :) I like shell sort for small data sets too. And I agree it would be appropiate for the kernel. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/