On Wed, 5 November 2008 21:12:34 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 21:06 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 November 2008 20:57:20 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > 
> > > That sounds fair, after all at least it limits the tree size, but I'm
> > > too lazy to calculate the worst case right now.
> > 
> > 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.

When entries/node approaches infinity it is 1/4.  With 4 entries/node,
which is the smallest useful number, it is 3/8.

quoted text
> 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.

I could create a git tree and ask for inclusion in -next.  Or you could
combine it with your code.  I slightly favor the latter, as a library
without any users is somewhat... useless.

Jörn

-- 
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/