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.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 5:49 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

15/02/2023 12:06, Bili Dong:
> An XOR32 hash is needed in the Software Switch (SWX) Pipeline for its
> use case in P4. We implement it in this patch so it could be easily
> registered in the pipeline later.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bili Dong <qobilidop@gmail.com>
> ---
> +/**
> + * Calculate XOR32 hash on user-supplied byte array.
> + *
> + * @param data
> + * Data to perform hash on.
> + * @param data_len
> + * How many bytes to use to calculate hash value.
> + * @param init_val
> + * Value to initialise hash generator.
> + * @return
> + * 32bit calculated hash value.
> + */
> +static inline uint32_t
> +rte_hash_xor(const void *data, uint32_t data_len, uint32_t init_val)

Should we add "32" in the function name?