On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 14:34 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:52 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:37 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:36 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:27 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 12:58 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 18:00 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > > > > >From [PATCH 0/0] A shared memory cache to perform better: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0/3: New utility functions/headers > > > > > > > These are also quite straightforward but they are useless without > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > later patches > > > > > > > > > > > > Nack. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your implementation doesn't match the original: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From MurmurHash3_x86_32(): > > > > > > h1 = h1*5+0xe6546b64; > > > > > > > > > > > > From this patch: > > > > > > h1 = h1 + 5 + 0xe6546b64; > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only assume that s/*/+ is not going to yield proper results :) > > > > > > > > > > OUPS, well it will give *different* results, but consistent. > > > > > Anyway I'll fix it and send back a fixed patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I fail to understand why you use (nblocks * 4) instead of 'len', > > > > > > given > > > > > > that nblocks was defined as len/4 > > > > > > > > > > Because (nblocks * 4) != len and it is 3 times out 4 < len :-) > > > > > Remember nblocks is an integer, so any fractional part is lost, which > > > > > is > > > > > what we want here, we want to process len - (nblocks * 4) remaining > > > > > bytes. > > > > > > > > > > > While I know that it's a fixed value, I'd rather see > > > > > > sizeof(uint32_t) > > > > > > instead of '4' in getblock() (for readability and clarity) > > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > Attached a patch with the requested code changes addressed. > > > > > > > > > I think you resent the old patch > > > > I think you are right. > > > > Let's try again. > > Ok new revision. > > First patch just fixes one building warning in the testes. > > Second patch adds a new tests for checking that the hash returns the > same value (deterministic) and it does it by hashing each time a random > value so that we always test the function with a different value and > have greater coverage (may catch if specific values cause the hash > function to fail).
Ack to both. Note to committer: patches are not lexically ordered, so they need to be manually ordered when applying.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
