author | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | |
Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:30:06 +0000 (18:30 -0700) | ||
committer | Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> | |
Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:16:12 +0000 (19:16 -0700) | ||
commit | 2a1a3dce3333950d16f78caf34b3bb2ac46ab4d4 | |
tree | ecff3deffa96e5b0971e0fc0926ff97efab2acdf | tree | snapshot |
parent | 2c9750cc8b902a55669183e05533207dd7ec71fd | commit | diff |
Fix a copy-n-paste bug in the object decorator code.
Duh.
When I did the object decorator thing, I made the "loop over the hash"
function use the same logic for updating the hash, ie made them use
if (++j >= size)
j = 0;
for both the hash update for both "insert" and "lookup"
HOWEVER.
For some inexplicable reason I had an extraneous
j++;
in the insert path (probably just from the fact that the old code there
used
j++;
if (j >= size)
j = 0;
and when I made them use the same logic I just didn't remove the old
extraneous line properly.
This fixes it.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Duh.
When I did the object decorator thing, I made the "loop over the hash"
function use the same logic for updating the hash, ie made them use
if (++j >= size)
j = 0;
for both the hash update for both "insert" and "lookup"
HOWEVER.
For some inexplicable reason I had an extraneous
j++;
in the insert path (probably just from the fact that the old code there
used
j++;
if (j >= size)
j = 0;
and when I made them use the same logic I just didn't remove the old
extraneous line properly.
This fixes it.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
decorate.c | diff | blob | history |