that appears to do it :)
-dean
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> dean gaudet writes:
> > also, for order > 7, was the real intention to use a shift of
> > (order*2)&31?
>
> No, the whole thing is buggered. How stupid, my fault.
> It was the 64-bit platform fascist at work :-)
>
> How does this work for you (against 2.4.x)?
>
> --- fs/dcache.c.~1~ Tue Feb 6 23:00:58 2001
> +++ fs/dcache.c Thu Feb 8 00:09:10 2001
> @@ -696,7 +696,8 @@
> static inline struct list_head * d_hash(struct dentry * parent, unsigned long hash)
> {
> hash += (unsigned long) parent / L1_CACHE_BYTES;
> - hash = hash ^ (hash >> D_HASHBITS) ^ (hash >> D_HASHBITS*2);
> + hash = hash ^ (hash >> D_HASHBITS) ^
> + (hash >> (D_HASHBITS+(D_HASHBITS/2)));
> return dentry_hashtable + (hash & D_HASHMASK);
> }
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:13 EST