On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:45:27PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote: > > Er... I'll let Ted tell me if I screwed up, but I went through > the code quite carefully figuring out what value to use, and > DX_HASH_LEGACY_UNSIGNED is *not* an on-disk encoding. You're right, but it would probably be safer to have a hole in the on-disk numbering. That's because changing the numbering of EXT2_HASH_*_UNSIGNED will change the ABI of ext2fs_dirhash(). While we don't officially support a mismatch between the version of e2fsck and libext2fs, and it's unlikely that other programs would be trying to use ext2fs_dirhash. Still, it would probably simpler to not try to assign DX_HASH_SIPHASH24 to be 6, and to leave better comments about how the hash values are used. 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
