[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 3/3] ocfs2/xattr: Proper hash collision handle in bucket division.v2

[Tao Ma]

Joel Becker wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:02:28PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
>>
>> Joel Becker wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:43:53AM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 02:15:35PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
>>>>> Joel Becker wrote:
>>>>>> 	I have an idea to do what you're doing, but cleaner.  I'll look
>>>>>> at cmp_xe and try again in the morning.
>>>>> cool, so waiting for your perfect code. ;)
>>>> Zing!  You got me :-)
>>> 	How's this (untested)?
>>> /*
>>>  * If this ocfs2_xattr_header covers more than one hash value, find a
>>>  * place where the hash value changes.  Try to find the most even split.
>>>  * The most common case is that all entries have different hash values,
>>>  * and the first check we make will find a place to split.
>>>  */
>>> static int ocfs2_xattr_find_divide_pos(struct ocfs2_xattr_header *xh)
>>> {
>>> 	struct ocfs2_xattr_entry *entries = &xh->xh_entries;
>>> 	int count = le16_to_cpu(xh->xh_count);
>>> 	int delta, middle = count / 2;
>>> 	/*  	 * We start at the middle.  Each step gets farther away in both
>>> 	 * directions.  We therefore hit the change in hash value
>>> 	 * nearest to the middle.  Note that this loop does not execute for
>>> 	 * count < 2.
>>> 	 */
>>> 	for (delta = 0; delta < middle; delta++) {
>>> 		/* Let's check delta earlier than middle */
>>> 		if (!cmp_ex(&entries[middle - delta - 1], 			    &entries[middle - 
>>> delta]))
>>> 			return middle - delta;
>>> 		/* For even counts, don't walk off the end */
>>> 		if ((middle + delta + 1) == count)
>>> 			continue;
>>> 		/* Now try delta past middle */
>>> 		if (!cmp_ex(&entries[middle + delta],
>>> 			    &entries[middle + delta + 1]))
>>> 			return middle + delta + 1;
>>> 	}
>>> 	/* Every entry had the same hash */
>>> 	return count;
>>> }
>> yeah, this looks perfect and more efficient.
>> I will modify my patch and then test it.
> 
> 	Haha, it has a bug!  Those cmp_ex() calls should not have the
> '!' in front of them.  We're looking for differences, not matches.  Take
> out those '!'s.
> 
> Joel (sorry about the bug)
Never mind. I will just use your idea and test it. So don't worry about 
any bug. I will handle it. :)

Regards,
Tao