From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:49:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:48:49 -0500 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:43278 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:48:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission To: greearb@candelatech.com (Ben Greear) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:50:08 +0000 (GMT) Cc: ak@suse.de (Andi Kleen), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (linux-kernel), netdev@oss.sgi.com (netdev@oss.sgi.com) In-Reply-To: <3A580B31.7998C783@candelatech.com> from "Ben Greear" at Jan 06, 2001 11:22:41 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Suppose I bind a raw socket to device vlan4001 (ie I have 4k in the list > before that one!!). Currently, that means a linear search on all devices, > right? In that extreme example, I would expect the hash to be very > useful. At this point you have to ask 'why is vlan4001 an interface'. Would it not be cleaner to add the vlan id to the entries in the list of addresses per interface ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/