[...]
> > So much for ingenuity. Hash #2 does slightly better, but hardly
> > significantly better. I don't like the existing hash particularly because
> > 4 divides 32, so the 1st and 9th bytes are treated identically. But
> > maybe, even if I think it looks wrong, it ain't broke.
> Maybe since filenames themselves aren't very random, the current scheme
> works very well with typical sets of filenames. Anyway, it's good to
> know the current algorithm is working well.
I understood the tests were for _real_ directories, not made-up ones...
Anyway, the differences to the ideal values don't look large to my
untrained eye...
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html