From owner-freebsd-fs  Thu Apr 24 03:39:22 1997
Return-Path: <owner-fs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA29626
          for fs-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 03:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA29621
          for <fs@freebsd.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 03:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id KAA13310; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:39:12 GMT
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 19:39:12 +0900 (JST)
From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@dk.tfs.com>
cc: fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: the namei cache... 
In-Reply-To: <736.861877581@critter>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970424193241.13258B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> >What's wrong with relying on the hash?
> 
> It's not needed.

How would the link list version fare under degenerate cases like large
directories?

With hashing you can work on the hashing algorithm.  Btw, what is the hash
key now?  vp+name[20]?

Mike