Richard Sharpe wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > > Richard Sharpe wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Having looked at mangle_hash2, it is clear that the mangling char is hard > > > coded. I am sure this is not intended. > > > > > > Should I fix it? > > > > While tridge would be a much better one to comment, I will say this: > > > > The new mangling scheme was designed to be very fast, and not > > particulary flexible. In fact, it could be argued that the inflexibilty > > is a feature - becouse changes to the mangling scheme actually have some > > nasty consequenses. (8.3 names are stored by some applications etc, > > hence why we have not moved to hash2 in 2.2 by default) > > Oh, I agree with that, however, hard-coding ~ when lp_mangling_char() > would be almost as fast, and would have the same effect in the default > case, seems wrong.
Well, we don't want to have a literal lp_mangling_char(), becouse this code get's hit *a lot*. You will notice that may parts of the code used to do a strcmp() but now use some fancy per-character table lookups. There might be some argument for using a static variable instead. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student Network Administrator, Hawker College [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net