On Fri, 5 August 2005 17:44:52 +0800, David Teigland wrote:
>
> linux/lib/crc32table.h : crc32table_le[] is the same as our crc_32_tab[].
> This looks like a standard that's not going to change, as you've said, so
> including crc32table.h and getting rid of our own table would work fine.
>
> Do we go a step beyond this and use say the crc32() function from
> linux/crc32.h? Is this _function_ as standard and unchanging as the table
> of crcs? In my tests it doesn't produce the same results as our
> gfs2_disk_hash() function, even with both using the same crc table. I
> don't mind adopting a new function and just writing a user space
> equivalent for the tools if it's a fixed standard.
The function is basically set in stone. Variants exists depending on
how it is called. I know of four variants, but there may be more:
1. Initial value is 0
2. Initial value is 0xffffffff
a) Result is taken as-is
b) Result is XORed with 0xffffffff
Maybe your code implements 1a, while you tried 2b with the lib/crc32.c
function or something similar?
Jörn
--
And spam is a useful source of entropy for /dev/random too!
-- Jasmine Strong
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |