I have a story there. I had a whole "counted list" implementation ready to go, and then when I went through the tree to find potential users I found only two. And then when I looked closer I found that they didn't really need to count. And that's why there's this patch series that makes them not count anymore, instead of adding a counted list.
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:51:51AM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: > Okay, sounds good. It's not large enough that it makes sense to > make the lists counting or anything. > > --Justin > > > On Aug 15, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > When I occasionally look, I usually see about a dozen or so. Not > > enough to concern me, anyway. Some are probably duplicates (same fd). > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:06:06PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: > >> It looks fine, but do we have an idea on the number of waiters that > >> typically exist? > >> > >> --Justin > >> > >> > >> On Aug 10, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >> > >>> It's always a little risky to track the length of a list by hand, because > >>> it is easy to miss a spot where the length can change. So it seems like > >>> a small cleanup to just measure the length of the 'waiters' list at the > >>> point where we need to know it. list_size() is O(n) in the length of the > >>> list, but the function that calls it is already O(n) in that length so it > >>> seems like a fair trade-off. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
