On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 12:53 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> Thats also what the chain_index code depends upon (although I have build
> in a safe guard that sorts them if they are not). There is also a safe
> guard for the offset binary search, but that simply reverts to the old
> (_slow_) search scheme.
I see, so that's no problem either =>
if (strcmp(c->name, ctail->name) > 0 ||
iptcc_is_builtin(ctail))
list_add_tail(&c->list, &h->chains);
else {
iptc_insert_chain(h, c);/* Was not sorted */
h->sorted_offsets = 0;
The skip-list-like search infrastructure is also quite nice and
integrates well with the current code, once one understands what it does
anyway. So there is really no reason as to why my patch should be
preferred over yours ;-)
Regards,
Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
