On Mon, May 05, 2008, Roman Divacky wrote:
> hi
>
> when we want to use a hash table in kernel we call "hashinit" which
> initializes a hash table with power-of-2 size. There's also "phashinit"
> that creates hash table of size that is a prime number. This was
> added in 1995 by davidg@ but it is
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 02:25:56AM -0400, David Schultz wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > hi
> >
> > when we want to use a hash table in kernel we call "hashinit" which
> > initializes a hash table with power-of-2 size. There's also "phashinit"
> > that creates hash table of
2008/5/6 Roman Divacky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Most general-purpose hash implementations I've used (e.g., GNU
> > libstdc++, Sun JDK, Microsoft .NET) use prime table sizes,
> > probably to make it less likely that programmers will shoot
> > themselves in the foot with pathological data or ba
On Tuesday 06 May 2008 09:48:30 Roman Divacky wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 02:25:56AM -0400, David Schultz wrote:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2008, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > > hi
> > >
> > > when we want to use a hash table in kernel we call "hashinit" which
> > > initializes a hash table with power-of-
Hi,
just by curiosity, why #define UT_HOSTSIZE is 16, not 256, like in
OtherBSDs and some unix-like-like OSes? :)
Regards
LVJ
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send an
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/6 Roman Divacky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > > Most general-purpose hash implementations I've used (e.g., GNU
> > > libstdc++, Sun JDK, Microsoft .NET) use prime table sizes,
> > > probably to make it less like
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:11:35PM +0200, Lukasz Jaroszewski wrote:
> just by curiosity, why #define UT_HOSTSIZE is 16, not 256, like in
> OtherBSDs and some unix-like-like OSes? :)
Probably historical reasons. It's very much possible to change it
though. We've defined it to 64 since FreeBSD 2.
How reliable is the Posix semaphore support in FreeBSD 7 for
interprocess synchronization?
Is it not on by default because no one uses it, or because the code
isn't trustworthy, or some other reason?
Is this what you would recommend for synchronizing access to a shared
resource between processes
* Marc Olzheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably historical reasons. It's very much possible to change it
> though. We've defined it to 64 since FreeBSD 2.05 and never really had
> any trouble.
When increasing it, we shouldn't forget to increase UT_LINESIZE to 16 as
well. Using the UNIX 98 P
On Fri, 2 May 2008, Martin Schütte wrote:
I am taking part in this year's Google Summer of Code for NetBSD and want to
implement the upcoming IETF Syslog standards for BSD's syslogd(8). The most
important improvements will be an extended message format, TLS network
transport, and digital sign
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This sounds like an exciting project -- while I recognize the concerns
> other have expressed about complexity, I think that complexity can be
> managed if done carefully. I'm not sure if you've looked at Apple's
> exte
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 12:41 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > This sounds like an exciting project -- while I recognize the concerns
> > other have expressed about complexity, I think that complexity can be
> > man
Robert Watson schrieb:
managed if done carefully. I'm not sure if you've looked at Apple's
extended syslog, which among other things, includes a binary log file
format making it more mechanically searched and managed, do take a look
if you haven't.
I read the asl man pages
(http://developer
13 matches
Mail list logo
