This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2020. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
[devp2p] Don't use
rust-crypto
#10714[devp2p] Don't use
rust-crypto
#10714Changes from 12 commits
3efca47
431eccf
95a958d
66f3659
be06f57
9634be3
d5d1eb0
1e68071
6f51390
b0c89b8
f190a63
0ae675b
17c3a3b
e4e00c9
b2e51bb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This last copy seems useless (except to show a repeating pattern with previous lines, which can make sense and then we rely on optimization). Not sure if it is worth removing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah it seems like we could use
key_material_keccak
everywhere we usekey_material[32..64]
below. I'll leave it as it is because I don't understand it fully.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
did we actually do that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we could put packet as a field of this struct, that would be pretty straightforward, but I am really not sure about the lifetime of this one (and if we want to keep memory of unusually large packet allocated).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I removed the comment because like @cheme I was unsure of what the original author of the comment actually intended with it: is to be read like "it sure would be nice to allocate a bit less here" or "this is a terrible performance problem". Such comments seem unhelpful to me so I removed it.