search for: null_tag

Maybe security related mails should be sent elsewhere? I didn't notice any so here it goes: sender.c:receive_sums() s->count = read_int(f); .. s->sums = (struct sum_buf *)malloc(sizeof(s->sums[0])*s->count); if (!s->sums) out_of_memory("receive_sums"); for (i=0; i < (int) s->count;i++) { s->sums[i].sum1 = read_int(f);

...-- match.c 3 Jan 2004 19:28:03 -0000 1.60 +++ match.c 27 Jan 2004 17:04:22 -0000 @@ -75,8 +75,12 @@ static void build_hash_table(struct sum_ qsort(targets,s->count,sizeof(targets[0]),(int (*)())compare_targets); +#ifdef WEIRD_MINUS_ONE for (i = 0; i < TABLESIZE; i++) tag_table[i] = NULL_TAG; +#else + memset((char *)tag_table, 0xFF, TABLESIZE * sizeof *tag_table); +#endif for (i = s->count; i-- > 0; ) tag_table[targets[i].t] = i;

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1467 ------- Additional Comments From ripper@internode.on.net 2004-06-19 02:18 ------- The way the code seems to work is as follows: A sorted list of hashes and their block numbers are generated (targets). They're sorted so that identical hashes are numerically next to each other. A reverse lookup table is then generated, that (i presume) is

Attached is a patch that makes window strides constant when files are walked with a constant block size. In these cases, it completely avoids all memmoves. In my simple local test of rsyncing 57MB of 10 local files, memmoved bytes went from 18MB to zero. I haven't tested this for a big variety of file cases. I think that this will always reduce the memmoves involved with walking a large

...(len-offset), s->n); - map = (schar *)map_ptr(buf,offset,k); - sum = get_checksum1((char *)map, k); + + map_ptr(buf,offset,s->n); + k = buf->m_len; + sum = get_checksum1(buf->m_ptr, k); + s1 = sum & 0xFFFF; s2 = sum >> 16; matches++; break; } null_tag: /* Trim off the first byte from the checksum */ - map = (schar *)map_ptr(buf,offset,k+1); - s1 -= map[0] + CHAR_OFFSET; - s2 -= k * (map[0]+CHAR_OFFSET); + map_ptr(buf,offset,k+1); + if (buf->m_len==0) break; /* encountered EOF */ + s1 -= buf->m_ptr[0] + CHAR_OFFSET; + s2 -= k * (b...