From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FDA41CEE; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 18:54:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8159A430BC; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 18:54:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ed1-f53.google.com (mail-ed1-f53.google.com [209.85.208.53]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC9E40395 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 18:54:11 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ed1-f53.google.com with SMTP id eg37so3959091edb.12 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:54:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QWjeGSCEUjM423REnsvKEm2SBDyrfS07axChiJtts0U=; b=df4tQG+oi0OMDU5rZnvX00f5GP6/DUYJeGE84QM5WFu8PzB4z7Pslhl+TrV60LJbII g3p/DK6EUeNGHVIUBfebTZ7v38r1ZUj04UhsK51/rWaG3YLNVXqAVlNMLwDANvHCOfKP Nglzpfj+Dx1s7WirB3TicexkWS9IGrSRSGnbGpkL6L+66U2kPX3XL9fO+QHNdD9iBXo/ XWTG7WLgD085+c9lKfbY8y6BXSecNzFauP5Zn4kLAOOyIYIZCd8uHX/Ke0erxxRlDlyg 2hyGl4ToUfUjd8eMzlMKcwsrti38HMgpwmIYWqFhwAWJMco/mNSSUz/ThU9J+iJD27LM zAcA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=QWjeGSCEUjM423REnsvKEm2SBDyrfS07axChiJtts0U=; b=sg9AetepnDbK4VvhxYMcM9MXqIWJV2gkcfhCg5sfViD/lR1v0Rq2ZmmQLM0xz2/OXd CuMNHigicSW8hyLaVCHLw4UbIBb6S6U9a6sXb3GbqHOImjms0MJ95dIHsW2wS+btGIUH UJ7iy6itQFYsV3EkC/+iU8GYAHDHZhtuwVtXypVA015saBQeVJNsqG398AOycDZ+paCv J0UgNEx6u0Ux46O19LOISqra1aEMJJ8sLOeWjmUd54QF1jYjCxO6kuYXwNGBH2A9h+Pq kRbnJqdXq2WdqHfrRXGvs1/r5V49bBAdU86ML1w4KB2ESCS9OtQ3YrzMUN3pUrZhvYBk 45NA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKU1v1JrOW2g1mYOSLbPULaQIumi+xSnUPCOK8ccKSR5bwNl+OtN udgtKeuD0ELmsKmjDF51aXmAojXYnXgiBaYy80c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/AqimdJd0QKT31TBkuTetg5OrEis2zHvEANl/sVTLUlHo6RA9NEkQfQuLv6QVe8vDlOuJsDuEywX3KL8EOqGM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:5484:b0:4ac:ce81:9c1d with SMTP id fg4-20020a056402548400b004acce819c1dmr1022583edb.0.1676915651295; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:54:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230215105442.3878441-1-qobilidop@gmail.com> <3296424.9LS3J3VOpE@thomas> <16442264.0ZKypZ73Fx@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: Bili Dong Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:54:00 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] hash: add XOR32 hash function To: Bruce Richardson Cc: Sameh Gobriel , Thomas Monjalon , cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, yipeng1.wang@intel.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b6be2d05f52559af" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --000000000000b6be2d05f52559af Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Got it. I=E2=80=99ll update the patch. On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM Bruce Richardson wrote: > 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#L= 168 > . > > > 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. > --000000000000b6be2d05f52559af Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Got it. I=E2=80=99ll update the patch.

On Mon, Feb 20= , 2023 at 9:52 AM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
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 &qu= ot;32" didn't
> > appear in other hash function names. If we add "32" her= e, we probably
> > should also rename rte_hash_crc(). I'm fine with either optio= n.
>
> 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 re= move the
old names so there would be no compatibility issues.
--000000000000b6be2d05f52559af--