> -----Original Message----- > From: Kamlesh Gurudasani <kamlesh@xxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 2:26 AM > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] crypto: crc64 - add crc64-iso > framework > > Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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. ECMA-182 (DLT-1 tapes) was contributed to become ISO/IEC 13421 in 1993, so that was another "64-bit CRC standardized by ISO." Plus, ISO could publish new standards with new CRCs at any time. > But I do agree that crc64-iso3309 would be more specific, will change it > to crc64-iso3309 in next revision. Thanks. > > Regards, > Kamlesh ISO-3309:1991 was withdrawn and revised by ISO/IEC 3309:1993, which was withdrawn and revised by ISO/IEC 13239:2002, which was confirmed in 2007 and is still current. Apparently only the 1991 version defined a CRC-64; later versions dropped that. Is there really a demand for adding a 23 year old deprecated algorithm to the kernel?
