On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 11:27 -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 15:34 +0100, Jeremy Harris wrote: > > > On 06/26/2018 03:29 PM, David Wysochanski wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 09:21 -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > > Yes, by default all list entries encountered are put in the built-in > > > > > hash queue, specifically for the purpose of determining whether there > > > > > are duplicate entries. So if it's still running, it hasn't found any. > > > > > > > > > > To avoid the use of the hashing feature, try entering "set hash off" > > > > > before kicking off the command. But of course if it finds any, it > > > > > will loop forever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah ok yeah I forgot about the built-in list loop detection! > > > > > > For a storage-less method of list loop-detection: run two walkers > > > down the list, advancing two versus one elements. If you ever > > > match the same element location after starting, you have a loop. > > > > I agree some algorithm [1] without a hash table may be better > > especially for larger lists. > > I'll await your patch... > Do you see any advantage to keeping the hash table for loop detection or would you accept a patch that removes it completely in favor of a another algorithm? -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
