Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:11:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: gibbs@plutotech.com, nate@mt.sri.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709241711.LAA12805@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199709241700.DAA04019@godzilla.zeta.org.au> References: <199709241700.DAA04019@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> an unacceptable tradeoff. > > > >How do you figure? untimeout is now the same as it was before, or > >aren't the cookies based on a hash table? > > Hash lookup is non-deterministic, since searching is required to handlle > collisions. You had stated earlier that it would be easy to build a perfect hash generator. It would seem to me that using either solution is still fairly predictable 'on average'. > handlers where we would prefer deterministic behaviour. Note that hash > lookup is not required for timeout() since we don't care about duplicates. Right, but hash insertion in the case of duplicates is still non-deterministic. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709241711.LAA12805>