* Valentin Schneider [off-list ref] [2021-05-25 11:21:02]:
On 24/05/21 21:48, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
quoted
* Valentin Schneider [off-list ref] [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:
quoted
Ok so from your arch you can figure out the *size* of the set of unique
distances, but not the individual node_distance(a, b)... That's quite
unfortunate.
Yes, thats true.
quoted
I suppose one way to avoid the hook would be to write some "fake" distance
values into your distance_lookup_table[] for offline nodes using your
distance_ref_point_depth thing, i.e. ensure an iteration of
node_distance(a, b) covers all distance values [1]. You can then keep patch
3 around, and that should roughly be it.
Yes, this would suffice but to me its not very clean.
static int found[distance_ref_point_depth];
for_each_node(node){
int i, nd, distance = LOCAL_DISTANCE;
goto out;
nd = node_distance(node, first_online_node)
for (i=0; i < distance_ref_point_depth; i++, distance *= 2) {
if (node_online) {
if (distance != nd)
continue;
found[i] ++;
break;
}
if (found[i])
continue;
distance_lookup_table[node][i] = distance_lookup_table[first_online_node][i];
found[i] ++;
break;
}
}
But do note: We are setting a precedent for node distance between two nodes
to change.
Indeed. AFAICT it's that or the unique-distance-values hook :/
Peter,
Please let me know which approach would you prefer.
I am open to try any other approach too.
In my humble opinion, unique-distance-values hook is more cleaner.
Do you still have any concerns with the unique-distance-values hook?
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju