On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 18:36 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 15:53 +0200, holzheu wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 06:12 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 14:55 +0200, holzheu wrote: > > > > Hi Gerrit, > > > > > > > > The common thing of your and our approach is, that we need an ID to > > > > identify a message either by: > > > > > > > > > Maybe I am missing something big, but why is an ID needed? > > > The message IS the ID right? That's the only thing that is robust > > > against code moving about.... > > > > Yes. As already discussed with Pavel, it is one option to use the format > > string of the message as message ID. The disadvantage compared to > > message IDs like hashes is, that format strings might be even less > > unique than hashes > > if the hash comes from the string in the first place I have a hard time > believing that. >
Just think of all messages containing %s, which can expand to every possible string. Michael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
