On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Seiji Aguchi <seiji.agu...@hds.com> wrote: >> What about feeding the bytes of all three integers into a non-cryptographic >> hash function? >> Using this way you get a cheap unique id. > > It is reasonable to me.
How does efivars backend handle "unlink(2)" in the pstore file system. pstore will call the backend->erase function passing the "id". The backend should then erase the right record from persistent storage. With the ((timestamp * 100 + part) * 100 + count function - you can easily reverse it to find timestamp, part and count - would that make life easier for the backend to find the record to be erased? If you use a hash function you will need to check each record and compute the hash to see if it matches (probably not a big deal because the backend will generally only hold a handful of records). -Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
