Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Having said all that, I like your approach better. It is not worth paying >> the price of unnecessary memcpy(3) that would _only_ help catching the >> insanely artificial test case, but your patch strikes a good balance of >> small overhead to catch the easier-to-trigger (either by stupidity, malice >> or mistake) cases. > > I think it also catches the bad RAM case which is probably more common > too. That is true; a broken RAM that returns unstable values will yield different values between the time the first hash runs and the time the deflate loop runs will trigger the safety. -- 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