On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:23:42PM -0600, LaMont Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:25:35PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> > Fine with me. I doubt that removing -N would hurt the debian user
> > base though. I guess noone sane would deliberately use that option.
>
> The only place I could see someone using it would be if they were
> mounting a volume they had built elsewhere (or were using elsewhere),
> and hadn't rebuilt yet/couldn't rebuild.
>
> Here's the patch with -N dropped, which is fine by me.
At first glance this patch seems OK. I assume some negative feedbacks
from lkml people who hate cryptoloop :-) So.. some questions:
* how many distributions already support in-losetup hashes?
(Suse, Debian, ?)
* the original idea was: hashprog | losetup -p0 ....
- why we need built-in hash support?
> Incompatible change:
> Default is now to hash using sha512. Debian users will need
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why? Why not 'none'?
> to specify "--phash rmd160" to access existing Debian devices.
> Others will need to specify '--phash none'.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
