The code likely is good, but the why for some of it isn't obvious to me and needs some clarification I think.

Might want to also note that you've made a lot of variables local. I think that's a good change too, but best to note it or split it off into another commit.

I think this is good... but mav will know for sure if we're missing something

Surprised this wasn't already the case

I've created a hash module that has some of the sha routines. I don't have big issues connecting those.

In D44706#1021491, @jhb wrote:

In D44706#1020670, @imp wrote:

One nit... also applies to all of this series of reviews: consider omitting the license boilerplate.

Hmm, are we ready to do that? I know we have some SPDX-only files in the tree and are kind of allowing it, but I wasn't sure we'd crossed the point to preferring that by default.

I'd be happy moving to #pragma once for almost all files in the tree...

oh! That's the problem... I did a clean build and that's why I didn't see it...

Some of this can be found with
curl -i -s 'https://api.github.com/search/users?q=$USER@freebsd.org'
but only if the FreeBSD address is the primary email.
I've not found how to lookup by secondary email.

Let's put all the reviews in the PR for this. It's usually a bad idea to do both and wastes my time having to deal with both unless there's a good reason.

In D44649#1019208, @jhb wrote:

I kind of wonder if we'd like to just have this in <sys/endian.h> as letoh, but then you'd want the full complement of betoh, htobe, etc.

update, per review.