On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 12:04:18PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:37:27PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 14:16:10 +1100 > David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:[snip]Hrm.. so this turns out to be trickier than I thought. The difficulty is that it means hash_probe() now needs to be able to return a failure for the "table full" case. That makes the signature much uglier to deal with. I can still do it if you think it's worth it, but I'll post v2 without that change. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibsonI wonder if it makes sense to take care of the possible "overflow" outcome from step L4. of algorithm L you mentioned in 1/3. It *shouldn't* because you're enforcing the minimum size of the hash table, I wonder if it's a good idea anyway.Yeah, I wondered that too, it's probably a good idea for safety. I'll look at implementing that.