On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:31 AM, George Spelvin wrote:
> The hash mixing between adding the next 64 bits of name
> was just a bit weak.
>
> Replaced with a still very fast but slightly more effective
> mixing function.
I'e applied this patch independently of all your other hash
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:31 AM, George Spelvin wrote:
> The hash mixing between adding the next 64 bits of name
> was just a bit weak.
>
> Replaced with a still very fast but slightly more effective
> mixing function.
I'e applied this patch independently of all your other hash rework to my tree.
The hash mixing between adding the next 64 bits of name
was just a bit weak.
Replaced with a still very fast but slightly more effective
mixing function.
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin
---
As long as I was looking at all sorts of hashing in the kernel, I noticed
this. I'm not
The hash mixing between adding the next 64 bits of name
was just a bit weak.
Replaced with a still very fast but slightly more effective
mixing function.
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin
---
As long as I was looking at all sorts of hashing in the kernel, I noticed
this. I'm not sure if this is
4 matches
Mail list logo