On 25 May 2017 at 13:55, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 01:08:21PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: >> On 25 May 2017 at 10:36, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> 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 <j...@ovn.org> >> > >> > 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.
Oh, I think that was just an oversight. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
