Hello, Please hold off on reviewing the code if you have not yet spent any time. I have found at least 1 issue. However feel free to respond on the questions about automated testing.
I will send an update once I have the issue resolved. Thank you -Bhaskar On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Bhaskar Maddala <madda...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I updated the diff [1], it uses function now instead of macros, and > added hash function "wt6". I did smoke testing stepping thru the code via > the debugger for all hash functions and it looks good, however requires > more rigorous testing which I will do later today. > > On mixing on hashing function I initially tried the alternative of a > separate keyword and settled on using the same keyword when I found the > unused nibble in the bit masks. Fwiw, using the separate keyword makes the > code a little simpler, but from a end user standpoint (which includes me) I > found not having another keyword to be better. > > It would be great if you can take a look at [1] once more and see if > you want anything changed. I did not look hard enough, but can/should I add > some configs to tests/ folder and how/do these get run when invoking make, > or do you run these in some other manner. Are there any additional tests > you would like written? > > Thanks > Bhaskar > > [1] https://github.com/maddalab/haproxy/pull/1 > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > >> Hi Bhaskar, >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:44:58AM -0400, Bhaskar Maddala wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > Can you please take a look at [1]? Make sure it is what you had in >> mind, >> > I read thru our conversation here again and I understood that the >> change we >> > wanted to implement allowed selection of the hash function in addition >> to >> > map-based/consistent and avalance. >> > >> > The change provide the ability to specify. <> indicates optional >> > >> > hash-type consistent <sdbm/djb2/wt6> >> > hash-type map-based <sdbm/djb2/wt6> >> > hash-type avalanche <sdbm/djb2/wt6> >> > >> > Not all of it is implemented, i am in the middle of testing, but >> wanted >> > any early feed back you might have before i spent a lot of time on it. >> >> I feel a bit bothered by having the if on the hash type done for >> every single character. I'd rather have 3 hash functions that work >> on (ptr, len) and call the right one with the string and length >> instead. >> >> It will also allow us to have clean hash functions resusable for >> anything else. >> >> Concerning the config, initially I thought that having a separate >> keyword (eg: hash-algo) to set the algorithm was better than mixing >> it with the hash-type keyword. But now I'm not completely sure about >> this because probably people who want to set the algo will also want >> to be sure about the type of hashing they're applying. I'd like to >> get other users' feedback on this, particularly those using the >> consistent hashing. >> >> Thanks, >> Willy >> >> >
