On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 19:51 +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote: > 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. > So one machine can be both le and be ? at the same time ? > 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. > And what is the purpose of the jhash output ? Is is sent to other machines on the network, or only localy used ? > That's why I want to have the ntohs() / ntohl() when comparing. If xt_HMARK depends on a particular bit ordering to jhash() input, then something is really wrong. I mean it. jhash() primary purpose it to shuffle input. We use (__force u32) everywhere in network tree to avoid sparse warnings. Please grep for them. -- 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
