lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Regression introduced by bfcfaa77bdf0f775263e906015982a608df01c76 (vfs: use 'unsigned long' accesses for dcache name comparison and hashing)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> OK, full_name_hash()/hash_name() definitely have a mismatch and it's on the
> names of length 8*n: trivial experiment shows that we have
> name hash_name full_name_hash

Good catch, guys.

Ugh. And I never noticed despite having run this code on my machines
for several weeks, because I don't think I have anything that uses the
"full_name_hash()" function. And it looked so obviously the same.

> Linus, which way do you prefer to shift it?  Should hash_name() change to
> match full_name_hash() or should it be the other way round?
>
> What happens is that you get multiplication by 9 and adding 0 in the former,
> after having added the last full word.  In the latter we add the last full
> word, see that there's nothing left and bugger off.

Yes. I think we should make things match "hash_name()", because that's
the one that is critical and we want to really generate good code for.

I think you can just move the "*=9" down in full_name_hash(), so that
we always "pre-multiply" the hash for the next round. But I'll have
to double-check my logic.

Linus
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-22 21:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans