Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] crypto: crc64 - add crc64-iso framework

[Kamlesh Gurudasani]

Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:58:49AM +0530, Kamlesh Gurudasani wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/crc64.h b/include/linux/crc64.h
>> index 70202da51c2c..10b792080374 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/crc64.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/crc64.h
>> @@ -8,11 +8,15 @@
>>  #include <linux/types.h>
>>  
>>  #define CRC64_ROCKSOFT_STRING "crc64-rocksoft"
>> +#define CRC64_ISO_STRING "crc64-iso"
>>  
>>  u64 __pure crc64_be(u64 crc, const void *p, size_t len);
>>  u64 __pure crc64_iso_generic(u64 crc, const void *p, size_t len);
>>  u64 __pure crc64_rocksoft_generic(u64 crc, const void *p, size_t len);
>>  
>> +u64 crc64_iso(const unsigned char *buffer, size_t len);
>> +u64 crc64_iso_update(u64 crc, const unsigned char *buffer, size_t len);
>> +
>>  u64 crc64_rocksoft(const unsigned char *buffer, size_t len);
>>  u64 crc64_rocksoft_update(u64 crc, const unsigned char *buffer, size_t len);
>
> Is "crc64-iso" clear enough, or should it be "crc64-iso3309"?  There are
> thousands of ISO standards.  Different CRC variants are specified by different
> ISO standards.  Is this particular variant indeed commonly referred to as simply
> the "ISO" CRC-64?  Even if it's currently the case that all other CRCs in ISO
> standards are different widths than 64 bits (which may be unlikely?), I'm not
> sure we should count on no CRC-64 variant ever being standardized by ISO.
>
> - Eric
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_redundancy_check

Last entry CRC-64-ISO in the table.
It is mentioned as crc64-iso and that's the
only 64-bit CRC standardized by ISO. But I do agree that crc64-iso3309 would
be more specific, will change it to crc64-iso3309 in next
revision. Thanks.

Regards,
Kamlesh