On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 21:06 +0100, J=C3=B6rn Engel wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 5 November 2008 20:57:20 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >=20
> > That sounds fair, after all at least it limits the tree size, but I'm
> > too lazy to calculate the worst case right now.
>=20
> Worst case you have a single entry next to a full node, then split the
> full node, etc.  So slightly more than 1/4 populated.

That would be roughly 1/3, no? But it doesn't really matter much.

quoted text
> > I'd use this as-is for the WIP cfg80211 code that keeps track of BSSes,
> > as a hash-table/list on steroids.
>=20
> Excellent.  With this trojan horse in place I don't have to worry much
> about a competing library with a different interface.  Famous last
> words. :)

:)
How we going to synchronise this? I'm not in a hurry with this scanning
code and I need to work on it still anyway.

johannes