David S. Miller:
>
> Such multiple algorithm dynamic schemes have already been shunned by
> most of the people on this list early on in the thread.
If it makes _sense_ to have more than one algorithm, e.g. when each
outperforms the other by a nontrivial margin (depending on the data),
then there's not much sense in saying that it's stupid to do it.
Right now Linux 2.1 is in the fridge; this means that there are
considerations beside "the technically most superior solution".
Linus has said as much.
> algorithm that works nicely in all cases, so we don't have to maintain
> a piece of code which uses two different schemes.
>
Assuming that there is one. You're welcome to implement a dynamic hash,
for instance, but Linus did say that if anything gets into 2.2 it's going
to be the AVL stuff. If you can convince him otherwise, your solution may
well be superior -- I'm not saying it isn't.
-- Matthias Urlichs | noris network GmbH | smurf@noris.de The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://www.noris.de/~smurf/-- Perhaps the biggest disappointments were the ones you expected anyway.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html