On (10/09/13 09:18), Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 12:24 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (09/09/13 09:22), Simo Sorce wrote:
> >On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 13:37 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> On (07/09/13 13:43), Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 18:55 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 19:45 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> >> > On (06/09/13 12:48), Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> >> > >On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 16:26 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> >> > >> Step 6) Remove record R3(hash_1:4, hash_2:3) stored
at slot index 0x43
> >> >> > >> a) Remove record R3 from chain starting by hash
R3->hash1 (value 4)
> >> >> > >> hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4)
-> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >> hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4)
-> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >> hash[3] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >> hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >> hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> b) Remove record R3 from chain starting by hash
R3->hash2 (value 3)
> >> >> > >> hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4)
-> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >> hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4)
-> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >> hash[3] -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >> hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >> hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >I do not see how this happens, in hash[3] you have another
record after
> >> >> > >R3 so hash[3] should be
> >> >> > This behaviour was introduced by patch
4662725ffef62b3b2502481438effa7c8fef9f80
> >> >> > and it is very similar to reinvalidation.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >hash[3] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >however I do see how R3 would remain in hash[1] and
hash[2].
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >And that is a problem, the problem I was trying to wrap my
mind around
> >> >> > >with the patch you proposed last time. Wouldn't the
revalidation idea I
> >> >> > >had last time fix this issue ?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >Simo.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > record R1(hash_1:1, hash_2:2) stored at slot index 0x12
> >> >> > record R2(hash_1:3, hash_2:1) stored at slot index 0x31
> >> >> > record R3(hash_1:4, hash_2:3) stored at slot index 0x43
> >> >> > record R4(hash_1:5, hash_2:4) stored at slot index 0x54
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Last state:
> >> >> > -------------------------
> >> >> > hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[3] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[4] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I will try to describe last removing with your idea about
reinvalidation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Step 6) Remove record R3(hash_1:4, hash_2:3) stored at slot
index 0x43
> >> >> > a) Remove record R3 from the 1st chain starting by hash
R3->hash1 (value 4)
> >> >> > hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[3] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> >
> >> >> > b) Revalidate chain for R3->hash1 (value 4)
> >> >> > -- chain for hash[4] refers to 0x54(R4) and R4 has hash
with value 4
> >> >> >
> >> >> > c) Remove record R3 from the 2nd chain starting by hash
R3->hash2 (value 3)
> >> >> > hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[3] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> >
> >> >> > d) Revalidate chain for R3->hash2 (value 3)
> >> >> > -- chain for hash[3] refers to 0x54(R4)
> >> >> > and R4 *DOES NOT have* hash with value 4
> >> >> > --hash[3] will refer wo successor of R4,
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[3] -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> >
> >> >> > e) Revalidate all succesors of record R3. R3->next ==
0x54 (R4)
> >> >> > in this case, only record R4(hash_1:5, hash_2:4) is in
chain
> >> >> > -- chain for hash[5] refers to 0x54(R4) and R4 has hash
with value 5
> >> >> > -- chain for hash[4] refers to 0x54(R4) and R4 has hash
with value 4
> >> >> >
> >> >> > f) slots for record R2 will be invalidated.
> >> >> > hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> INVALIDATED_SLOT ??-> 0x54(R4)
-> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> INVALIDATED_SLOT ??-> 0x54(R4)
-> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[3] -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> > hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As you can see the, result is the same as from my previous
mail.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is a special case, but it can happen.
> >> >> > I spent a lot of time with reproducing this case and with
analysis.
> >> >> > So I hope this explanation helps to understand this special
case.
> >> >> > Is it clear now?
> >> >>
> >> >> It is clear to me, but what you describe here is not my original
> >> >> proposal.
> >> >>
> >> >> Revalidation was the rechecking of chains when you remove an
object.
> >> >> In your example revalidation of the chains when you remove R2 (not
R3)
> >> >> would lead to removal of R3 from hash[1] and hash[2] chains
resolving
> >> >> the problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am only sorry I wasn't more firm on the revalidation idea
now.
> >> >>
> >> >> I will send some examples later.
> >> >>
> >> >> Simo.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Just a refresher of my original proposal:
> >> >After we remove a record we re-validate the 2 chains it belonged to,
and
> >> >prune any record that does not match the chain record or any of the
> >> >chains referenced by the records that precede.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Ok here is the example.
> >> >
> >> >---
> >> >This was the problem:
> >> >Add record R1(hash_1:1, hash_2:2) stored at slot index 0x12
> >> >Add record R2(hash_1:3, hash_2:1) stored at slot index 0x31
> >> >Add record R3(hash_1:4, hash_2:3) stored at slot index 0x43
> >> >Add record R4(hash_1:5, hash_2:4) stored at slot index 0x54
> >> >Remove record R2
> >> >Remove record R3
> >> >
> >> >---
> >> >This was the state at step 4 of your first email, after everything was
> >> >added and before anything is removed:
> >> >
> >> >hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x31(R2) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4)
-> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x31(R2) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4)
-> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[3] -> 0x31(R2) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[4] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >
> >> >---
> >> >So let's remove R2.
> >> >
> >> >This is the state (as reported by you) after R2 is removed from all its
> >> >chains:
> >> >
> >> >hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) ->
MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[3] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[4] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >
> >> >R2 was in chain 3 and 1, so *now* let's re-validate the chains.
> >> >
> >> >First we do [3]
> >> >- First entry is R3 (4, 3), 3 matches so we keep it.
> >> > And now the chains to match are [3, 4] ([3] + (4, 3))
> >> >- Second is R4 (5, 4), 4 matches so we keep it.
> >> > And now the chains to match are [3, 4, 5] ([3, 4] + (5, 4))
> >> >- We are done, no more elements on hash[3]
> >> >
> >> >Then we do hash[1]
> >> >- First entry is R1 (1, 2), 1 matches so we keep it.
> >> > And now the chains to match are [1, 2] ([1] + (1, 2))
> >> >- Second entry is R3 (4, 3), it does *NOT* match any, so
> >> > we skip it, which means pointing R1 to the next one (R4)
> >> > Two chains are affected this way [1] and [2]:
> >> > hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> > hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >- Third now is R4 (5, 4) and the matching table is still [1, 2]
> >> > It does *NOT* match once again, so we skip this too.
> >> > R1 is now pointing at MC_INVALID_VAL which is the next value for R4
> >> > Two chains are affected this way [1] and [2]:
> >> > hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> > hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >- We are done, no more elements on hash[1]
> >> >
> >> >So the final status for step 5 (removal of R2) now is:
> >> >hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[3] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[4] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >
> >> >Now we remove R3 (4, 3), which is a quite simple operation:
> >> >
> >> >hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[3] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >
> >> >We have to do revalidation for chains [4], [3]
> >> >
> >> >First we do hash[4]
> >> >- First entry is R4 (5, 4), 4 matches so we keep it.
> >> > And now the chains to match are [4, 5] ([4] + (5, 4))
> >> >- We are done, no more elements on hash[4]
> >> >
> >> >Then we do hash[3]
> >> >- First entry is R4 (5, 4), it does *NOT* match any, so
> >> > we skip it, which means pointing the head to MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> > hash[3] -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >- We are done, no more elements on hash[3]
> >> >
> >> >Final status after step 6 is:
> >> >hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[3] -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL
> >> >
> >> >Which is the correct status.
> >> In this case, It is correct status, but I have a counterexample.
> >> >So re-validation of chains solves the problem as I had originally
> >> >proposed a few patches ago :)
> >> >
> >>
> >> We have records: R2(2,3) R3(4,3) R4(4,5) R5(5,6) R6(6,7)
> >>
> >> Steps: add R4, add R3, add R5, add R2, add R6, rm R3
> >>
> >>
> >> state after addind recors: add R4, add R3, add R5, add R2, add R6
> >>
> >> h_table | chain
> >> 2 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 3 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 4 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 5 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 6 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 7 -> R6
> >>
> >> Remove record R3(3,4)
> >> a) remove R3 from chain h_table[4]
> >> b) remove R3 from chain h_table[3]
> >>
> >> h_table | chain
> >> 2 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 4 -> R4 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 5 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 6 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 7 -> R6
> >
> >This is wrong, removing R3, removes it from chain 5 too (it was and
> >remains identical to chain 4).
> >
> >> c)Revalidate chain h_table[4]
> >>
> >> - First entry is R4 (4, 5), 4 matches so we keep it.
> >> And now the chains to match are [4, 5] ([4] + (4, 5))
> >> - Second is R5 (5, 6), 5 matches so we keep it.
> >> And now the chains to match are [4, 5, 6] ([4, 5] + (5, 6))
> >> - Third is R2 (2, 3), no match in [4, 5, 6]
> >> so we skip this.
> >> R5 is now pointing at R6 which is the next value for R2
> >>
> >> Current state:
> >>
> >> h_table | chain
> >> 2 -> R2 -> R6
> >> 3 -> R5 -> R6
> >> 4 -> R4 -> R5 -> R6
> >> 5 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R6
> >> 6 -> R5 -> R6
> >> 7 -> R6
> >>
> >> R2(2, 3) should be reachable with hash key 3, bu it isn't
> >> It is wrong.
> >
> >True, when thinking about re-validation I was wondering if we need to
> >validate both chains before allowing removal of any entry.
> >I guess we need to.
> >
> >So what we can do is to simply keep track of all record we would remove
> >from the first chain we validate, then parse the second and if any pair
> >is 'revalidated' we mark it as to not be deleted in the first chanin
> >either. If at the end of revalidation we have left anything to remove we
> >do.
> >
> >The first entry in the chain can always be removed, so we only keep
> >middle entries.
> >
> >so we keep the list of links we want to sever and what we want to keep,
> >from the first chain, and if any is revalidated by the second one we
> >scan we skip it.
> >
> >
> >Situation after removal of R3 and before revalidation:
> >
> >R2(2,3) R3(4,3) R4(4,5) R5(5,6) R6(6,7)
> >
> >h_table | chain
> > 2 -> R2 -> R6
> > 3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> > 4 -> R4 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> > 5 -> R4 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> > 6 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> > 7 -> R6
> >
> >During revalidation of chain 4 we have (R5, R2) as one of the links to
> >remove after the first chain pass (chain 4), but we do not remove it
> >yet.
> >We also have marked as keep (R4, R5), (R5, R6) (note that I skipped R2
> >here between R5 and R6)
> >
> >Then we revalidate chain 3:
> >
> >- first entry is R5(5,6), it doesn't match so we remove it.
> >- then we check R2(2, 3) which matches, it is now the first of the list
> >so we do not need to keep track of it.
> >Check is now for [2, 3] = [3 + (2, 3)]
> >- now we check R6, it doesn't match so we mark it for removal (R2, R6)
> >- done
> >
> >Interim situation where we removed only heads of lists:
> >h_table | chain
> > 2 -> R2 -> R6
> > 3 -> R2 -> R6
> > 4 -> R4 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> > 5 -> R4 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> > 6 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6
> > 7 -> R6
> >
> >
> >ok now we have the following 2 lists:
> >
> >1. to keep: (R4, R5), (R5, R6)
> >2. to remove: (R5, R2) (R2, R6)
> >
> >What we need to do here is check if any of those to remove is in the
> >list to keep, if it is strike it out from the remove list.
> >
> >We start with (R5, R2) in the removal-list and check it against the
> >keep-list.
> >It doesn't match, so we go on and link R5->(R2->next)
> >
> >h_table | chain
> > 2 -> R2 -> R6
> > 3 -> R2 -> R6
> > 4 -> R4 -> R5 -> R6
> > 5 -> R4 -> R5 -> R6
> > 6 -> R5 -> R6
> > 7 -> R6
> >
> >Then we go to the second element (R2, R6), we scan the keep list and we
> >do not find it either, so we proceed to change R2 -> (R6->next):
> >
> >h_table | chain
> > 2 -> R2
> > 3 -> R2
> > 4 -> R4 -> R5 -> R6
> > 5 -> R4 -> R5 -> R6
> > 6 -> R5 -> R6
> > 7 -> R6
> >
> >And we are done, we have no more removal to process and the chains look sane and
well trimmed down.
> >
> >Simo.
> >
>
> We have records: R0(0,1); R1(1,2); R2(2,3); R3(3,4); R4(4,5); R5(5,6); R6(6,7)
> R7(7,8);
>
> Steps: +R4, +R3, +R5, +R2, +R6, +R1, +R0, +R7,
> -R1
>
> state after addind recors: +R4, +R3, +R5, +R2, +R6, +R1, +R0, +R7,
>
> h_table | chain
> 0 -> R0 -> R7
> 1 -> R1 -> R0 -> R7
> 2 -> R2 -> R6 -> R1 -> R0 -> R7
> 3 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R1 -> R0 -> R7
> 4 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R1 -> R0 -> R7
> 5 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R1 -> R0 -> R7
> 6 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R1 -> R0 -> R7
> 7 -> R6 -> R1 -> R0 -> R7
> 8 -> R7
>
> As you can see, last added record R7 is part of each
> chain. Actually, it is only one chain and few sub-chains.
>
>
> Remove R1 (it will be devided in few steps
>
> -- remove R1 from chains h_table[1] and h_table[2]
> h_table | chain
> 0 -> R0 -> R7
> 1 -> R0 -> R7
> 2 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0 -> R7
> 3 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0 -> R7
> 4 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0 -> R7
> 5 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0 -> R7
> 6 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0 -> R7
> 7 -> R6 -> R0 -> R7
> 8 -> R7
>
> -- there isn't problem with the first entry in chains
>
> -- marking records for removing in chain h_table[1]
> Keep :
> Remove: (R0, R7)
>
> -- marking records for removing in chain h_table[2]
> Keep :
> Remove: (R0, R7); (R2, R6); (R6, R0);
>
> -- removing records from chain h_table[1]
> What we need to do here is check if any of those to remove is in the
> list to keep, if it is strike it out from the remove list.
>
> We start with (R0, R7) in the removal-list and check it against the
> keep-list.
> It doesn't match, so we go on and link R0->(R7->next)
> R0-> MC_INVALID_VAL
>
> Current state:
>
> h_table | chain
> 0 -> R0
> 1 -> R0
> 2 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0
> 3 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0
> 4 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0
> 5 -> R4 -> R3 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0
> 6 -> R5 -> R2 -> R6 -> R0
> 7 -> R6 -> R0
> 8 -> R7
>
> In this state, record R7 is *not* reachable with hash key "7"
>
> Revalidation of chain is very dangerous. The main problem is with single chain
> (link-list) for different hash keys and situation is much more complicated
> with higher collision of hash keys. This is a reason why I proposed to have
> two next pointers in record (rec->next1, rec->next2)
You got the computations wrong, however I found a different way in which
the revalidation fails :-(
I draw examples on paper with pencil.
So, I could do a mistake when I rewrote example into mail.
I was trying to keep one chain list as is to avoid changing the on disk
format, but at this point I agree it's getting complicated beyond what
is reasonable. If you propose a patch that adds 2 next elements I will
review it.
Simo.
At the moment, structure sss_mc_rec looks like
struct sss_mc_rec {
uint32_t b1; /* barrier 1 */
uint32_t len; /* total record length including record data */
uint64_t expire; /* record expiration time (cast to time_t) */
rel_ptr_t next; /* ptr of next record rel to data_table */
uint32_t hash1; /* val of first hash (usually name of record) */
uint32_t hash2; /* val of second hash (usually id of record) */
uint32_t b2; /* barrier 2 - 32 bytes mark, fits a slot */
char data[0];
};
I can see two possible solution,
1) sizeof(struct sss_mc_rec) will increase
--new member will be added to this tructure
struct sss_mc_rec {
uint32_t b1;
uint32_t len;
uint64_t expire;
rel_ptr_t next1; // "next" renamed to next1
rel_ptr_t next2; // "next2" is new member of structure
uint32_t hash1;
uint32_t hash2;
uint32_t b2;
uint32_t padding; // unused
char data[0];
};
-- MC_SLOT_SIZE will be increased from 32 -> to 40
-- reason: MC_SLOT_SIZE % sizeof(void*) should be 0 on each platform
2) sizeof(struct sss_mc_rec) will not change
struct sss_mc_rec {
uint32_t b1;
uint32_t len;
uint32_t expire_offset; // type was changed from uint64_t -> uin32_t
rel_ptr_t next1; // "next" renamed to next1
rel_ptr_t next2; // "next2" is new member of structure
uint32_t hash1;
uint32_t hash2;
uint32_t b2;
char data[0];
};
--expire_offset will be time since creation of mmap_cache.
--creation time of mmap_cache(uint64_t) will be stored in
"sss_mc_header mcc_ctx"
--reason: Year 2038 problem
Which one do you prefer?
LS