@@ -111,15 +111,24 @@ int new_hash( str call_id, str cseq_nr )

 		//hash_code+=crc_32_tab[(cseq_nr.s[i]+hash_code)%243];

 		hash_code+=ccitt_tab[*(cs+i)+123];

+	/* hash_code conditioning */

 #ifdef _BUG

+	/* not flat ... % 111b has shorter period than

+       & 111b by one and results in different distribution;

+	   ( 7 % 7 == 0, 7 %7 == 1 )

+ 	   % is used as a part of the hash function too, not only

+	   for rounding; & is not flat; whoever comes up with

+	   a nicer flat hash function which does not take

+	   costly division is welcome; feel free to verify

+	   distribution using hashtest()

+    */

 	hash_code &= (TABLE_ENTRIES-1); /* TABLE_ENTRIES = 2^k */

 #endif

-	/* hash_code conditioning */

 	hash_code=hash_code%(TABLE_ENTRIES-1)+1;

    	return hash_code;

 }

-void hashtest_cycle( int hits[TABLE_ENTRIES], char *ip )

+void hashtest_cycle( int hits[TABLE_ENTRIES+5], char *ip )

 {

 	long int i,j,k, l;

 	int  hashv;

@@ -151,20 +160,23 @@ int init_hash()

 			1<<10);

 		LOG(L_WARN, "WARNING: use of %d entries may lead "

 			"to unflat distribution\n", TABLE_ENTRIES );

+	} else {

+		DBG("DEBUG: hash function initialized with optimum table size\n");

 	}

 	return 1;

 }

 void hashtest()

 {

-	int hits[TABLE_ENTRIES];

+	int hits[TABLE_ENTRIES+5];

 	int i;

-	

+

+	init_hash();	

 	memset( hits, 0, sizeof hits );

 	hashtest_cycle( hits, "192.168.99.100" );

 	hashtest_cycle( hits, "172.168.99.100" );

 	hashtest_cycle( hits, "142.168.99.100" );

-	for (i=0; i<TABLE_ENTRIES; i++)

+	for (i=0; i<TABLE_ENTRIES+5; i++)

 		printf("[%d. %d]\n", i, hits[i] );

 	exit(0);

 }