On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 06:31:30PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:

Is there a reason why we have 13 values here while we had 11 values in
the test this was split out from?

+	struct curry c = { 0 };
+	size_t i = 1;
+
+	do {
+		tree_search(values + i, &root, &test_compare, 1);
+		i = (i * 5) % 13;
+	} while (i != 1);

It's completely non-obvious that `tree_search()` ends up _inserting_
nodes into the tree when the entry we're searching for wasn't found (and
if the last parameter is `1`. I feel like this interface could really
use a complete makeover and split up its concerns. In any case, that
does not need to happen as part of this patch seriesr

What I think would help though is if the commit message itself mentioned
this unorthodox way of inserting values into the tree.

+	infix_walk(root, &check_increasing, &c);

Not a fault of this commit, but this test certainly isn't great. It
would succeed even if `infix_walk()` didn't do anything as we do not
verify at all whether all nodes have been traversed (and traversed once,
exactly).

Patrick