Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 May 2001 05:14:45 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Why recovering from broken configs is too hard |
| |
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> But we only give this solution a certain amount of "tries" and > give up (or tell the user, that we have a hard time here and aks > for continue or abort and fixing by hand), if we either tried to > often or a certain amount of time has passed (30secs maximum > until next prompt).
Actually, I suspect that problem is much easier than Eric had described it.
Assertion: you can split the set of variables into disjoint union of small subsets X, Y_1,...,Y_m such that each constraint is concerned only with variables from X and at most one of Y_i.
IOW, there is a small "core" and for fixed values of core variables constraints fall into groups, each dealing with its own _small_ set of variables.
If that assertion is true the complexity is nowhere near 3^N.
Eric, you probably have the most accurate information about the existing constraints. Care to verify the assertion above? I'm serious - the set of constraints is very far from generic and if nothing else, such preprocessing (splitting variables into core and peripherial groups) can make life easier in other parts of the thing.
- 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/
| |