From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:00:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:00:42 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-038-046.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.38.46]:59551 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:00:40 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Roman Zippel Subject: Re: discontiguous memory platforms Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:59:53 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Ralf Baechle , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3CD17DCE.B7DB465D@linux-m68k.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 02 May 2002 19:56, Roman Zippel wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > Maybe this is a good place to try out a hash table variant of > > config_nonlinear. It's got to be more efficient than searching all the > > nodes, don't you think? > > Most of the time there are only a few nodes, I just don't know where and > how big they are, so I don't think a hash based approach will be a lot > faster. When I'm going to change this, I'd rather try the dynamic table > approach. Which dynamic table approach is that? -- Daniel