On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> As you say, my original patch had neither of those issues.
To be fair, my original patch had a different worry that I didn't
bother with: what if one of the _other_ callers of "get_short_sha1()"
passed in -1 to it. I only handled the -1 case in th eone path care
about in that first RFC for testing. So I'm *not* suggesting you
should apply my first version,, It has issues too.
Let me see if I can massage my first hacky RFC test-patch into
something more reliable.
Linus