From: Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:14:14 -0700
> From: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
>
> As measured in my prior patch ("sch_netem: faster rb tree removal"),
> rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() is nice looking but much slower
> than using rb_next() directly, except when tree is small enough
> to fit in CPU caches (then the cost is the same)
>
> From: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
Applied, thanks Eric.
