On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 20:56 -0500, jamal wrote: > I dont think Stephen would like that #if 0; however, this is not why > i am speaking up;->
I put it in there so it would be easy for someone using 2.4 to revert the patch, if they felt so inclined. Stephen let me know if you want it removed. > Your statement above that ""sample" has never worked since" maybe > misleading (just in case the text goes to the release logs). > If you used sample the way it is being used by mere mortals (sample on > the protocol), the hashing by either one of the two would end up in the > same bucket. True - depending on how you define mortal. It wouldn't work if you were hashing on the TOS bits, for example. There may be more than one person in the world doing that - although there isn't a huge amount of evidence for it. Anyway, I image Stephen doesn't like the comment, he will choose a different one for the CVS log. It is not like it is part of the source. However, before anyone commits it, I would like to hear your comments on my "compromise" hashing algorithm. I would be a shame to have to patch it twice. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
