On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 13:48, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Yes, I actually have that one my todo list to basically alias the individual commands to the hash command to remove those commands. My intention there was a first step to allow us to eventually minimise or even remove the use of obsolete hashes etc.
