Re: reversible fingerprint comment in membuffer code

2015-05-27 Thread Julian Foad
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Julian Foad wrote: >> Stefan Sperling wrote: >>> Is it worth extending the comment in the code with information from >>> this thread? >> >> IMO, Yes it is worth it. > > O.k. Done in r1681960 and r1681965. Thanks! - Julian

Re: reversible fingerprint comment in membuffer code

2015-05-27 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Stefan Sperling wrote: > > Is it worth extending the comment in the code with information from > > this thread? > > IMO, Yes it is worth it. > O.k. Done in r1681960 and r1681965. -- Stefan^2.

Re: reversible fingerprint comment in membuffer code

2015-05-25 Thread Julian Foad
Stefan Sperling wrote: > Is it worth extending the comment in the code with information from > this thread? IMO, Yes it is worth it. - Julian

Re: reversible fingerprint comment in membuffer code

2015-05-20 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 08:36:23AM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Philip Martin > wrote: > > I talked to Stefan and I believe I can explain. > Yes. > Exactly. Is it worth extending the comment in the code with information from this thread?

Re: reversible fingerprint comment in membuffer code

2015-05-19 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Philip Martin wrote: > Philip Martin writes: > > > Is this comment in cache-membuffer.c:combine_key correct? > > > > /* scramble key DATA. All of this must be reversible to prevent > key > >* collisions. So, we limit ourselves to xor and permutati

Re: reversible fingerprint comment in membuffer code

2015-05-19 Thread Philip Martin
Philip Martin writes: > Is this comment in cache-membuffer.c:combine_key correct? > > /* scramble key DATA. All of this must be reversible to prevent key >* collisions. So, we limit ourselves to xor and permutations. */ > data[1] = (data[1] << 27) | (data[1] >> 37); >