On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>
> FWIW, if you're talking about the hash of doubly-linked lists, it was
> indeed
> added after profiling real-world performance problems here at Google. I
> don't
> know the specifics (I only forward-ported it from our internal reposit
2009/10/28, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> Both my CVS tree and the CVS web UI[1] show that
> there is a man page. Did I miss something?
Aha! I did, not you.
Some missing references in Makefile.inc were preventing it from being
included in the distribution tarball, as well as corresponding .pdf
format ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/27/2009 07:23 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>
>> I know there had been a similar question asked by Daniel a couple of
>> months back, but since then, some other patches landed..so I wanted to
>> ask again
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/27/2009 07:47 PM, Yang Tse wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> It seems we still lack in CVS an ares_parse_srv_reply man page for the
> provided function.
>
> Cheers,
Yang,
I am confused now. Both my CVS tree and the CVS web UI[1] show that
there is a man
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/27/2009 07:26 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> I gave it a quick glance just now and I spotted two things:
>
> 1) 'struct txt_reply' is a global struct and should thus be with ares_
> prefix
>like ares_txt_reply or similar.
>
Renamed. I should
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, John Engelhart wrote:
Regardless, I really think that there should be some kind of "minimum" floor
returned instead of 0/0. Even with a minimum of 1000 microseconds (1
millisecond), that's 1000 times per second. Is there really a need to make
an attempt with such frequen
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:43:22PM -0400, John Engelhart wrote:
> While I agree a linear scan of the queue isn't the most efficient means, it
> is the "easiest". Even with hundreds of packets in an unsorted linked list,
> just how much time is really spent running through the queue, anyways? Did
