On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Fruhwirth Clemens wrote: > The changes, I purposed, shouldn't be too hard to implement. I will > build a skeleton for Michael, but I can't test the code, as I don't own > a padlock system, further
I've got one now, and can use it for testing. > I'm sorry to say but, my time is somehow > constrained.. I really gotta start to write my diploma thesis, I'm > delaying this for too long for crypto stuff now. > > But before I put that into the my queue, I would like to see some kind > of decision on an async crypto framework. acrypto cames with hardware > support. So, are we heading for hardware support in cryptoapi, hardware > support in acrypto, acrypto instead of cryptoapi, OCF instead of > cryptoapi, or put everything into the kernel and export 3 interface? Exact details are unknown at this stage. If we can get permission to use OCF, then we need to work out what's best. > And how - when there is more than one interface - are these projects > going to reuse code? I would imagine so. - James -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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/
