From: Florian Zumbiehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:07:19 +0200
Erm, I'd say this not only produces different results than the old
version, but it also produces wrong results, in that it ignores quite
a bit of the data that's supposed to be hashed. If I didn't overlook
Hi,
-static int hash_item(unsigned long sid, unsigned char *addr)
+#if 8%PPPOE_HASH_BITS
+#error 8 must be a multiple of PPPOE_HASH_BITS
+#endif
Since PPPOE_HASH_BITS is 4 I would think this check will break the
build. :-)
Erm, I thought that 8 was 4*2, but maybe I didn't quite
Hi,
Erm, I'd say this not only produces different results than the old
version, but it also produces wrong results, in that it ignores quite
a bit of the data that's supposed to be hashed. If I didn't overlook
something, it only considers addr0x0f0f0f0f0f00 and sid0x0f0f, given
the
From: Florian Zumbiehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:01:59 +0200
Assuming that it was supposed to read s/head/hash/: Same disclaimers
apply, but I'd say this considers only addr0xff0fff0f000f and
sid0x0fff, so, well, yes, it's better, but still not quite what I
think it should
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
From: Florian Zumbiehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:05:47 +0200
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
From: Florian Zumbiehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:04:23 +0200
Hi,
I'm not sure whether this is really worth it, but it looked so
extremely inefficient that I couldn't resist - so let's hope providers
will keep PPPoE around for a while, at least until terabit dsl ;-)
The
Hi,
I'm not sure whether this is really worth it, but it looked so
extremely inefficient that I couldn't resist - so let's hope providers
will keep PPPoE around for a while, at least until terabit dsl ;-)
The new code produces the same results as the old version and is
~ 3 to 6 times faster for
