> I'm not sure of the benefit. When/if we do that, we'll obviously need > to add some code to deal with the one-to-three byte tail, and the > obvious way to do that is to look at the URL.
Well I think a lot of developers (including my self) would just zero out the remaining unnecessary bytes to end up with a full word. Probably not a big deal either way though. I think it's fine to leave it as is. Ethan > >> I want to replace the implementation of flow_hash_symmetric_l4() with >> this because it's in the fast path for bundle actions, and it's >> current implementation is particularly inefficient. Any reason I >> shouldn't? > > I actually tried to reformulate the Jenkins hash to work out better > there, and failed, and that's why I started looking for a new hash in > the first place, so yes I think that's appropriate. > >> Also, I'm going to start doing Acked-bys >> >> Acked-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> > > Thanks. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
