@@ -563,7 +565,7 @@
static inline struct list_head * d_hash(struct dentry * parent, unsigned long hash)
{
- hash += (unsigned long) parent;
+ hash += (unsigned long) parent / L1_CACHE_BYTES;
hash = hash ^ (hash >> D_HASHBITS) ^ (hash >> D_HASHBITS*2);
return dentry_hashtable + (hash & D_HASHMASK);
}
I don't see the advantages of considering two dparent pointers distant
less than 32bytes as the same randomizing value. IMHO this will only
decrease the effect of the randomization we get from the parent address.
So to stay on the safe side I rejected the above fragment in my own tree.
If somebody can waste some time to explain me what I am missing (or to
agree with my rejection) I will appreciate any kind of feedback as usual.
Thanks.
Andrea
-
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/