Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > If youlimit the hash size to 20 bytes, there are almost no changes > necessary. > > You'd need to hijack the 'SHA1_Init/SHA1_Update/SHA1_Final' functions, of > course, and you'd likely want to rename them (and eventually a lot of > other functions too), but that renaming is mechanical and isn't even > needed for proper working. > > Now, if you would ever want to extend the _size_ of the hash, that's a > much much bigger problem, but if you're ok with just changing the hash and > then truncating the result to 20 bytes (ie kind of like sha-512-160), or > you're ok with limiting yourself to 20-byte hashes like REIPMD-160, the > size of the changes should be minimal. Just in case Jerome really wants to go further, "almost no changes" and "minimal" refers to the fact that we have a few hard-coded hash values known to the code, such as the object name for an empty blob and an empty tree. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html