* Tejun Heo (tj@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:16:48PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > This is just one example in an attempt to show why different hash table > > users may have different constraints: for a hash table entirely > > populated by keys generated internally by the kernel, a random seed > > might not be required, but for cases where values are fed by user-space > > and from the NIC, I would argue that flexibility to implement a > > randomizable hash function beats implementation simplicity any time. > > > > And you could keep the basic use-case simple by providing hints to the > > hash_32()/hash_64()/hash_ulong() helpers in comments. > > If all you need is throwing in a salt value to avoid attacks, can't > you just do that from caller side? Scrambling the key before feeding > it into hash_*() should work, no? Yes, I think salting the "key" parameter would work. Thanks, Mathieu > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>