On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 05:04:16PM -0400, linux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > One things I'm coming across immediately that I have to ask for > design guidance on is the hash algorithm number assignment: > > - Should I leave room for more hashes with a signed/unsigned distinction, > or should I assume that's a historical kludge that won't be perpetuated? > SipHash is defined on a byte string, so there isn't really a signed > version. It's a historical kludge that shouldn't be needed for new checksums; just make sure it is defined correctly and that you test interop between Big-Endian and Little-Endian machines. The awfulness we had was because there were already a large number of file systems out in the field on PowerPC and Intel machines, so we needed to preserve compatibility as much as possible, such that newer kernels could correctly understand filesystems that had originally been created on the opposite-endian system. Cheers, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
