On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote: >> No it's not. O(256) equals O(1). > > Ok, you're right. Maybe O() was not the right thing to use when trying > to point out that iterating over 256 hash buckets and then following the > chain in each bucket per packet broadcast looks like a lot. >
Heh. I guess you could call it an "expensive O(1)". While big-O notation is useful for describing algorithm scalability with respect to input size, it falls flat on its face when trying to articulate impact in measurable units. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
