Hi Bruce,
Thank you for the review.
> > - hash lookup on existing keys NOT likely to be on shift-path with:
> > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table
> >
> > - hash lookup on non-existing keys with:
> > - hash add causing NO key-shifts of existing keys in the table
> > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table
> >
> > - hash lookup on keys likely to be on shift-path with:
> > - multiple writers causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Yipeng Wang <[email protected]>
> > ---
>
> Does this need to be done via a completely new test case? Given the number
> of unit tests for the hash table structure, I'm wondering if we can
> consolidate
> things a bit. Any thoughts?
>
Are you concerned about new test case or new test case file?
>From a new test case perspective, we are testing a new use case, hence we need
>it. May be few parts can be combined such as generating the keys.
>From a new test case file perspective, combining this use case with existing
>files was making the code difficult to manage. Hence we decided to add a new
>file.
There are more test cases because of multiple configuration options present in
hash table.
> /Bruce
