Re: ip_conntrack_hash() problem

[Patrick Schaaf <bof@bof.de>]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:24:25PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> 
>    B) I despise the (1 << ...htable_bits) construct, used in several places.
>       It's nothing but obfuscation. Please reinstate ...htable_size, and
>       use that, the code will be more readable.
> 
> You despise, but the processor doesn't.  Less data loads
> means the code goes faster.

Please explain. I don't think that matters here:

Both _bits and _size are unsigned int, same amount of stuff to load. 

The one single per-packet-path use is in hash_conntrack(), where
the _bits thing can be used without touching the _size thing.

All other places where the patch now uses _bits, really need _size,
and do the ugly computation by shifting. And all those other places
are called very rarely.

So, I don't see how your (abstractly true) observation is relevant, here.

best regards
  Patrick