On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 02:00:16PM +0100, Igor Opaniuk wrote: > Hello, > > I was playing a bit with different hash functions recently, and > it turned out that md5sum, crc32, sha1 cmds just duplicate > what is already covered by generic `hash` cmd. > > => sha1 0x60000000 0x200 > sha1 for 60000000 ... 600001ff ==> 4ff5ffc91d00a95155518b920f46e2483d0e1437 > => hash sha1 0x60000000 0x200 > sha1 for 60000000 ... 600001ff ==> 4ff5ffc91d00a95155518b920f46e2483d0e1437 > > => crc32 0x60000000 0x200 > crc32 for 60000000 ... 600001ff ==> 6fe352e8 > => hash crc32 0x60000000 0x200 > crc32 for 60000000 ... 600001ff ==> 6fe352e8 > > => md5sum 0x60000000 0x200 > md5 for 60000000 ... 600001ff ==> e6bbbe95f5b41996f4a9b9af7bbd4050 > => hash md5 0x60000000 0x200 > md5 for 60000000 ... 600001ff ==> e6bbbe95f5b41996f4a9b9af7bbd4050 > > Considering that most of them (besides md5sum) are using the same > int hash_command() function under the hood, but have a lot of duplicated > code for handling params, does it make sense to do some cleanup and > drop all them in favour `hash`? > > I also plan to extend usage info for `hash` by adding a list > compiled-in algos based on hash related compiled flags > (CONFIG_SHA1, CONFIG_CRC32 etc), so it's clear what algos > are available for hash calculation. > > Comments/objections are welcome!
It would be good, implementation wise, if each of those commands was just a redirect to hash ..., similar to how "load ...." will call the right filesystem calls. Does that make sense? Thanks. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
