Hi, > > > Actually it might be simpler and more efficient to just make > > > PPPOE_HASH_SHIFT be 8. > > > > SHIFT? SIZE? BITS? > > You know what I meant :-) > > PPPOE_HASH_BITS.
Actually, I wasn't sure, for "SHIFT" looks more similar to "SIZE" than to "BITS", plus numbers are somewhat same order of magnitude anyway, and I didn't quite see what you were up to, so ... whatever ;-) > I guess otherwise we degenerate back to your original patch :) Well, as I don't quite see what you were up to and as my patch doesn't change anything about the semantics of the code, I'd at least prefer that over your other suggestions so far ;-) A few variations I tried back when I created the patch, using larger things than a char for accumulating the pieces and then folding down from that, turned out to be slower than what I finally submitted, at least on the machines I tested it on. I didn't do comprehensive testing, as it really doesn't matter, after all, but I think the version I submitted is pretty fast, plus it's quite readable, and it keeps the flexibility of different hash sizes, but still should allow the compiler to optimize away the loops that allow for this flexibility. Florian - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
