Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: sm3 - add a new alias name sm3-256

[Ken Goldman]

On 2/10/2020 12:01 PM, Van Leeuwen, Pascal wrote:
> Well, the current specification surely doesn't define anything else and is
> already over a decade old. So what would be the odds that they add a
> different blocksize variant_now_  AND still call that SM3-something?

I just got a note from a cryptographer who said there were discussions 
last year about a future SM3 with 512 bit output.

Given that, why not plan ahead and use sm3-256?  Is there any downside?
Is the cost any more than 4 bytes in some source code?