On ven., 2016-02-19 at 09:07 -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > I had actually thought about that, but to be frank I felt like the logic to > compute the hashsize was complex the way it was presented currently, and that > my > rewite made it more clear, breaking it down into a few easy steps: > > 1) compute a goal size order > 2) compute the target order for the largest table we want to support > 3) select the minimum of (1) and (2) > 4) allocated the largest table we can up to the size in (3) > 5) compute how many buckets the table we allocated in (4) supports > > > I'm happy to use your suggestion above if the consensus is that its more > clear, > but it took me a bit to figure out what exactly the existing code was trying > to > do (especially given the dual use of the order variable), so I thought some > additional clarity was called for.
No strong feelings. I only took a look in other places like net/dccp/proto.c for similar problem.
