On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 05:14 +0300, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: > A nice change! Couple of years ago I did some tests with real sets of > MACs and jhash gives a better distribution than usage of a last octet. > > BTW, why do you use full address and generic jhash? Hashing of two > least significant words could be faster. Isn't it? Well - not sure what you're trying to say? First you're saying jhash() was clearly better and then you're saying I shouldn't use it? ;-) Anyway - just using the last two bytes (or even 16-bit words) won't cover the case where the locally administered bit is set in an otherwise unchanged address, which is getting more common for P2P. I also don't really see any major drawbacks to hashing it all? johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
