On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 06:38:23PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 20/02/2023 18:21, Bili Dong:
> > The naming is following the existing CRC32 hash:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v22.11.1/source/lib/hash/rte_hash_crc.h#L168.
> > I believe all existing hash functions in DPDK are 32 bits, so "32" didn't
> > appear in other hash function names. If we add "32" here, we probably
> > should also rename rte_hash_crc(). I'm fine with either option.
>
> Why all functions would be 32-bit?
> I don't think we need to rename all.
> We can just make the right thing when adding a new function.
>
> What maintainers of rte_hash think?
>
+1 to adding the 32 for clarity.

If we want consistency, it's easy enough to create some aliases for the
existing functions with the "32" extension on them. No need to remove the
old names so there would be no compatibility issues.