On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 04:42:11PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > Yes, and I agree. We're not looking to try and force this in with > underhand tactics. > > But a blind "nack to any SHA-1" is similarly damaging in the opposite > direction. > Well, reviewers have said they'd prefer that SHA-1 not be included and given some thoughtful reasons for that. But also they've given suggestions on how to make the SHA-1 support more palatable, such as splitting it into a separate patch and giving it a proper justification. All suggestions have been ignored. - Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
