linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Update jhash.h with the new version of Jenkins' hash

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0902120141040.23714@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:41:26 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	wli@...ementarian.org, kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update jhash.h with the new version of Jenkins' hash


On Thursday 2009-02-12 01:29, David Miller wrote:
>
>> (double)0xdeadbeef/((unsigned long long)1 << 32) is a rather poor
>> approximation of (sqrt(5)-1)/2. If this value which is not the
>> golden ratio is arbitrary, calling it something different from
>> JHASH_GOLDEN_RATIO would surprise the code's readers much less.
>
>Then we can change the name, whatever...
>
>But really, anyone truly interested will read the friggin' web site
>where all the design documents and hash test results live.

Why should we use deadbeef over golden_ratio anyway? It's just a
random constant. And I'd take the gold over beef anytime ;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/