Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I just copied the existing SHA256 stuff and mostly did a > s/SHA256/SHA1/ in patch 2/2. I'm not sure why > SHA256_NEEDS_CLONE_HELPER was needed, either, but I decided > to keep the SHA1 and SHA256 code as similar as possible for > consistency. > > We could probably drop both *_NEEDS_CLONE_HELPER macros, > but that's a separate patch. Fair enough. Thanks.
