* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
> @@ -96,6 +97,8 @@ struct elevator_type
> struct list_head list;
> };
>
> +#define ELV_HASH_BITS 6
> +
> /*
> * each queue has an elevator_queue associated with it
> */
> @@ -105,7 +108,7 @@ struct elevator_queue
> void
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
@@ -96,6 +97,8 @@ struct elevator_type
struct list_head list;
};
+#define ELV_HASH_BITS 6
+
/*
* each queue has an elevator_queue associated with it
*/
@@ -105,7 +108,7 @@ struct elevator_queue
void *elevator_data;
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 03:02:20PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Switch elevator to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the
> amount of
> generic unrelated code in the elevator.
>
> This also removes the dymanic allocation of the hash table. The size of the
> table is
> constant so
Switch elevator to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the
amount of
generic unrelated code in the elevator.
This also removes the dymanic allocation of the hash table. The size of the
table is
constant so there's no point in paying the price of an extra dereference when
Switch elevator to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the
amount of
generic unrelated code in the elevator.
This also removes the dymanic allocation of the hash table. The size of the
table is
constant so there's no point in paying the price of an extra dereference when
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 03:02:20PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
Switch elevator to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the
amount of
generic unrelated code in the elevator.
This also removes the dymanic allocation of the hash table. The size of the
table is
constant so
6 matches
Mail list logo