On Monday 14 May 2012 18:24:34 Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 18:09 +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote: > > > This context can contain both le & be machines, > > so at least in hmark it make sense > > Before jhash() and its shuffle ? What do you mean ? I want that a Big endian machine should produce the same hash value independent of flow direction as a Little endian. OK, I missed ntohl() before calling jhash_3words() Correct me if I'm wrong here (have no big endian machine available for test) jhash_3words() and __jhash_final() seems to be "endian" safe. So by doing the expensive ntohl on addresses and ports into jhash_3words() it will produce the same value on both be and le. That's why I want to have the ntohs() / ntohl() when comparing. > > Please respin your patch using (__force u16/u32) instead of > useless/expensive ntohs() / ntohl() (in _this_ context of hashing) > > If you compare two 32bits values, of course they must have same > ordering, but seeding jhash() is another matter. > > (Granted all calls use the same ordering of course) > > sparse is great tool, but if you add useless ntohl() calls to make > sparse silent, then its probably better to not use sparse. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
