<div dir="auto">Got it. I’ll update the patch.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM Bruce Richardson <<a href="mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com">bruce.richardson@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 06:38:23PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:<br>
> 20/02/2023 18:21, Bili Dong:<br>
> > The naming is following the existing CRC32 hash:<br>
> > <a href="https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v22.11.1/source/lib/hash/rte_hash_crc.h#L168" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v22.11.1/source/lib/hash/rte_hash_crc.h#L168</a>.<br>
> > I believe all existing hash functions in DPDK are 32 bits, so "32" didn't<br>
> > appear in other hash function names. If we add "32" here, we probably<br>
> > should also rename rte_hash_crc(). I'm fine with either option.<br>
> <br>
> Why all functions would be 32-bit?<br>
> I don't think we need to rename all.<br>
> We can just make the right thing when adding a new function.<br>
> <br>
> What maintainers of rte_hash think?<br>
> <br>
+1 to adding the 32 for clarity.<br>
<br>
If we want consistency, it's easy enough to create some aliases for the<br>
existing functions with the "32" extension on them. No need to remove the<br>
old names so there would be no compatibility issues.<br>
</blockquote></div></div>