On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 02:15:30PM +0000, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > Hi Bruce, > Thank you for the review. > > > > - hash lookup on existing keys NOT likely to be on shift-path with: > > > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > > > > > - hash lookup on non-existing keys with: > > > - hash add causing NO key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > > > > > - hash lookup on keys likely to be on shift-path with: > > > - multiple writers causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Yipeng Wang <yipeng1.w...@intel.com> > > > --- > > > > Does this need to be done via a completely new test case? Given the number > > of unit tests for the hash table structure, I'm wondering if we can > > consolidate > > things a bit. Any thoughts? > > > Are you concerned about new test case or new test case file? > From a new test case perspective, we are testing a new use case, hence we > need it. May be few parts can be combined such as generating the keys. > From a new test case file perspective, combining this use case with existing > files was making the code difficult to manage. Hence we decided to add a new > file. > > There are more test cases because of multiple configuration options present > in hash table. > Ok. That makes sense. Can you fix the couple of missing items for make/meson in this patch, then you can add my ack.
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
