On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 08:35:26PM +0200, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2012, 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. > > > > 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. > > No, but as Eric wrote: what is the point in forcing the same hash value > for the same input on big endian and little endian machines? Are you going > to transfer the hash value between machines? IIRC, Hans wants that, in case you have a cluster composed of system with different endianess, the hash mark calculated will be the same in both systems. To ensure that the distribution is consistent with independency of the endianess. -- 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
