From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:05:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:05:06 -0400 Received: from helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU ([128.32.131.251]:16569 "EHLO helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:04:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:05:20 -0700 From: Josh MacDonald To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Is dead? Message-ID: <20010926160520.C18363@helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I cannot find any code in the main tree that depends on this header file. Furthermore, I am somewhat skeptical of the algorithms. Maybe the first comment has scared people away: "The algorithms implemented here seem to be a completely new invention, and I'll publish the fundamentals in a paper." It defines two generic hash table classes using C preprocessor macros, a "fuzzy" hash and an ordinary hash. The "fuzzy" hash class is useless without a description. What does find_hash_fuzzy do? The ordinary hash class maintains an ring-ordered doubly-linked list of entries for each hash synonym, and it performs a move-to-front heuristic on insertion (but not for the find operation). The second and final comment ("HASHSIZE _must_ be a power of two!!!") does not apply to the ordinary hash class. Would anyone care defend either of these hash classes? -josh