Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:58:49AM +0530, Kamlesh Gurudasani wrote: >> diff --git a/include/linux/crc64.h b/include/linux/crc64.h >> index 70202da51c2c..10b792080374 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/crc64.h >> +++ b/include/linux/crc64.h >> @@ -8,11 +8,15 @@ >> #include <linux/types.h> >> >> #define CRC64_ROCKSOFT_STRING "crc64-rocksoft" >> +#define CRC64_ISO_STRING "crc64-iso" >> >> u64 __pure crc64_be(u64 crc, const void *p, size_t len); >> u64 __pure crc64_iso_generic(u64 crc, const void *p, size_t len); >> u64 __pure crc64_rocksoft_generic(u64 crc, const void *p, size_t len); >> >> +u64 crc64_iso(const unsigned char *buffer, size_t len); >> +u64 crc64_iso_update(u64 crc, const unsigned char *buffer, size_t len); >> + >> u64 crc64_rocksoft(const unsigned char *buffer, size_t len); >> u64 crc64_rocksoft_update(u64 crc, const unsigned char *buffer, size_t len); > > Is "crc64-iso" clear enough, or should it be "crc64-iso3309"? There are > thousands of ISO standards. Different CRC variants are specified by different > ISO standards. Is this particular variant indeed commonly referred to as simply > the "ISO" CRC-64? Even if it's currently the case that all other CRCs in ISO > standards are different widths than 64 bits (which may be unlikely?), I'm not > sure we should count on no CRC-64 variant ever being standardized by ISO. > > - Eric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_redundancy_check Last entry CRC-64-ISO in the table. It is mentioned as crc64-iso and that's the only 64-bit CRC standardized by ISO. But I do agree that crc64-iso3309 would be more specific, will change it to crc64-iso3309 in next revision. Thanks. Regards, Kamlesh
