On 26-Feb-26 4:22 PM, Marat Khalili wrote:
diff --git a/lib/hash/rte_hash_crc.h b/lib/hash/rte_hash_crc.h index fa07c97685..66f11fafcd 100644 --- a/lib/hash/rte_hash_crc.h +++ b/lib/hash/rte_hash_crc.h @@ -127,6 +127,24 @@ rte_hash_crc(const void *data, uint32_t data_len, uint32_t init_val) unsigned i; uintptr_t pd = (uintptr_t) data; + /* align input to 8 byte boundary if needed */ + if ((pd & 0x7) && data_len >= 8) {Perhaps the case data_len < 8 should also be included, with each of the if's below checking and correcting data_len individually?
No need to include this case; if data_len < 8 it will skip the for loop and fall through those 3 if's, and get processed there.
+ uintptr_t unaligned_bytes = 8 - (pd & 0x7); + data_len -= unaligned_bytes; + if (unaligned_bytes & 0x4) { + init_val = rte_hash_crc_4byte(*(const uint32_t *)pd, init_val); + pd += 4; + } + if (unaligned_bytes & 0x2) { + init_val = rte_hash_crc_2byte(*(const uint16_t *)pd, init_val); + pd += 2; + } + if (unaligned_bytes & 0x1) { + init_val = rte_hash_crc_1byte(*(const uint8_t *)pd, init_val); + pd += 1; + }Shouldn't the order be the opposite?
As long as we process the right number of bytes the order doesn't matter.
+ } + for (i = 0; i < data_len / 8; i++) { init_val = rte_hash_crc_8byte(*(const uint64_t *)pd, init_val); pd += 8; -- 2.52.0
