Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-05-13 01:00:30) > Justus Winter, le Mon 12 May 2014 12:05:40 +0200, a écrit : > > Previously, libports used a hash table per port bucket. This makes > > looking up a port difficult if one does not know the port bucket, as > > one has to iterate over all buckets and do a hash table lookup each. > > But conversely, this makes having to iterate over all ports while one > may want to just iterate over one bucket. I'd rather not drop that > feature.
This feature is not lost. ports_bucket_iterate (b, ..) iterates over all ports in bucket b as before. Also, looking up a port is often done. Iterating over the ports is done much less often. It seems to me that optimizing the former is more important. > _ports_bucket_class_iterate is clearly bogus ATM, so we at least need > something. Would it be too costly to maintain both a global and a > per-bucket hash table? It would at the very worse be only twice as > expensive as only the global hash table, while still allowing the > performance gain of iterating over only one bucket. Having more than one hash table is totally pointless imho. Since the port namespace is per-process, and libports is "per-process", having a hash table per bucket means that all per-bucket hash tables are disjoint. Justus
