[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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 <> 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.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-22 21:41    [W:0.020 / U:9.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site