On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 12:04:18PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:37:27PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > On Mon,  4 Dec 2023 14:16:10 +1100
> > David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
[snip]
> > I wonder if it makes sense to take care of the possible "overflow"
> > outcome from step L4. of algorithm L you mentioned in 1/3. It
> > *shouldn't* because you're enforcing the minimum size of the hash
> > table, I wonder if it's a good idea anyway.
> 
> Yeah, I wondered that too, it's probably a good idea for safety.  I'll
> look at implementing that.

Hrm.. so this turns out to be trickier than I thought.  The difficulty
is that it means hash_probe() now needs to be able to return a failure
for the "table full" case.  That makes the signature much uglier to
deal with.

I can still do it if you think it's worth it, but I'll post v2 without
that change.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson