From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Index/hash order Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20050412230027.GA21759@elte.hu> <20050412230729.GA22179@elte.hu> <20050413111355.GB13865@elte.hu> <425D4E1D.4040108@zytor.com> <20050413165310.GA22428@elte.hu> <425D4FB1.9040207@zytor.com> <20050413171052.GA22711@elte.hu> <20050413182909.GA25221@elte.hu> <20050413200237.GA26635@elte.hu> <425D7C0F.2050109@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Ingo Molnar , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 13 22:11:52 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DLoCH-0005nV-My for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:10:50 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261181AbVDMUOE (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:14:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261183AbVDMUOE (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:14:04 -0400 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:13271 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261181AbVDMUOB (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:14:01 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j3DKDws4022153 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:13:58 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j3DKDvFR015647; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:13:57 -0700 To: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: <425D7C0F.2050109@zytor.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.35__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.109 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Either which way, it feels to me that this idea has already been ruled > out, so it's probably pointless to keep debating just exactly what we're > not actually going to do. Hey, isn't that how most discussions progress? ;) I don't mind alternatives per se. I'm just lazy. I came up with one solution to the issues I percieved, and I like that one. But dammit, if somebody comes up with something _clearly_ superior, I'll just bow down in your general direction, and promptly implement that. Linus