summary | shortlog | log | commit | commitdiff | tree
raw | patch | inline | side by side (parent: 2c9750c)
raw | patch | inline | side by side (parent: 2c9750c)
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) |
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>
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 | patch | blob | history |
diff --git a/decorate.c b/decorate.c
index 396b41311a0d1549897d4b92bccd12001d13bc01..23f6b0040f1cda9a550e5b1d90589fa4a7f76eb5 100644 (file)
--- a/decorate.c
+++ b/decorate.c
hash[j].decoration = decoration;
return old;
}
- j++;
if (++j >= size)
j = 0;
}