On Fri, 5 August 2005 17:44:52 +0800, David Teigland wrote: > > linux/lib/crc32table.h : crc32table_le[] is the same as our crc_32_tab[]. > This looks like a standard that's not going to change, as you've said, so > including crc32table.h and getting rid of our own table would work fine. > > Do we go a step beyond this and use say the crc32() function from > linux/crc32.h? Is this _function_ as standard and unchanging as the table > of crcs? In my tests it doesn't produce the same results as our > gfs2_disk_hash() function, even with both using the same crc table. I > don't mind adopting a new function and just writing a user space > equivalent for the tools if it's a fixed standard. The function is basically set in stone. Variants exists depending on how it is called. I know of four variants, but there may be more: 1. Initial value is 0 2. Initial value is 0xffffffff a) Result is taken as-is b) Result is XORed with 0xffffffff Maybe your code implements 1a, while you tried 2b with the lib/crc32.c function or something similar? Jörn -- And spam is a useful source of entropy for /dev/random too! -- Jasmine Strong -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
