The search for extra nonce is not worth performing in the hashfast driver.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
diff --git a/driver-hashfast.c b/driver-hashfast.c
index f606221..2e407f8 100644
--- a/driver-hashfast.c
+++ b/driver-hashfast.c
@@ -641,25 +641,6 @@ static void hfa_update_die_status(struct cgpu_info *hashfast, struct hashfast_in
}
}
-static void search_for_extra_nonce(struct thr_info *thr, struct work *work,
- struct hf_candidate_nonce *n)
-{
- uint32_t nonce = n->nonce;
- int i;
-
- /* No function to test with ntime offsets yet */
- if (n->ntime & HF_NTIME_MASK)
- return;
- for (i = 0; i < 128; i++, nonce++) {
- /* We could break out of this early if nonce wraps or if we
- * find one correct nonce since the chance of more is extremely
- * low but this function will be hit so infrequently we may as
- * well test the entire range with the least code. */
- if (test_nonce(work, nonce))
- submit_tested_work(thr, work);
- }
-}
-
static void hfa_parse_nonce(struct thr_info *thr, struct cgpu_info *hashfast,
struct hashfast_info *info, struct hf_header *h)
{
@@ -698,7 +679,6 @@ static void hfa_parse_nonce(struct thr_info *thr, struct cgpu_info *hashfast,
* next 128 nonces */
applog(LOG_DEBUG, "HFA %d: OP_NONCE: SEARCH PROXIMITY EVENT FOUND",
hashfast->device_id);
- search_for_extra_nonce(thr, work, n);
}
}
}