On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 01:08:21PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: > On 25 May 2017 at 10:36, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: > >> When running 256B hash check, we currently iterate from 0 up to and > >> including bit 2048, which is beyond the range of bits that 256B holds. > >> For bit 2048, set_bit128() doesn't set a bit due to the range check. > >> Simplify the code by dropping the handling of bit 2048. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <[email protected]> > > > > Hmm, weird code. > > > > Looking at check_word_hash(), I think the goal here is to test that the > > hash of all-bits-0 is different from the hash for any single bit being > > set. That does seem like a valuable check. Do you think that there is > > a better way to still accomplish that goal for the larger cases? > > I think that the above is part of it, but it's also validating that > for murmurhash operating on 64-bit chunks at a time, it doesn't make a > difference whether the input data is 64-bit aligned or not.
Right; I just meant the reason why it originally went one-past-the-end. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
