On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 02:50 +0530, Praveen Kumar wrote:
> I have not imported augmented and rcu rbtree functionality to the xen
> tree,
> as there was no specific requirement for current planned
> implementation.
> 
> Please share your inputs. Thanks in advance.
> 
So, I'm having another look at this series.

Apart from the already mentioned authorship suppression problem, and
apart from the comments I've made on the single patches of the series,
I think the following (Linux) commits should also be considered (or a
reason for not doing that, being stated in the cover letter):

 f4b477c47332367d35686bd2b808c2156b96d7c7 rbtree: add const qualifier to some functions
 55a63998b8967615a15e2211ba0ff3a84a565824 lib/rbtree.c: optimize rb_erase()
 7ce6ff9e5de99e7b72019c7de82fb438fe1dc5a0 rbtree: coding style adjustments [*]
 1b9c53e849aa65776d4f611d99aa09f856518dad lib/rbtree.c: fix typo in comment of __rb_insert()
 ce093a04543c403d52c1a5788d8cb92e47453aba lib/rbtree.c: fix typo in comment of ____rb_erase_color [**]

[*] Either all, or just some honks of it. At least, the changes to the
style of the comments are valuable, as they make them consistent with
our style too. The others, I'm not sure, but I'd be tempted to say
let's take it all, to make backport of other patches easier...

[**] not sure about this, maybe you can give it a try, and see if it
applies, or can be adapted easily (if the typo is actually present, of
course).

d72da4a4d973d8a0a0d3c97e7cdebf287fbe3a99 ("rbtree: Make lockless
searches non-fatal") looks interesting, but I think we can leave it out
for now. But, please, mention it (and the fact you're not porting it
because we think we don't need it) in the cover letter.

Thanks and Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)