On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:46 -0500, James Morris wrote: > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Fruhwirth Clemens wrote: > > James, please test it against ipsec. I'm confident, that everything will > > work as expected and we can proceed to merge padlock-multiblock against this > > scatterwalker, so please Andrew, merge after a successful test of James. > > This code tests ok with IPSec, and delivers some good performance > improvements. e.g. FTP transfers over transport mode AES over GigE sped > up with this patch applied on one side of the connection by 20% for send > and 15% for receive.
Fine, nice to hear that!
> There are quite a few coding style and minor issues to be fixed (per
> below), and the code should probably then be tested in the -mm tree for a
> while (2.6.11 is too soon for mainline merge).
>
> > +static int ecb_process_gw(void *_priv, int nsg, void **buf)
> What does _gw mean?
generic walker.. can be removed, if you like.
> > +struct cbc_process_priv {
> > + struct crypto_tfm *tfm;
> > + int enc;
> > + cryptfn_t *crfn;
> > + u8 *curIV;
> > + u8 *nextIV;
> > +};
>
> No caps please, I suggest curr_iv and next_iv.
Ack, cipher.c is underscore style. But my LRW private helper lib
gfmulseq.c is going to stay lowerCamelCase. I hope that's ok for
everyone. If not, the one concerned should post a reformat patch.
> > + r = pf(priv, nsl, dispatch_list);
> > + if(unlikely(r < 0))
> > + goto out;
>
> Not sure if the unlikely() is justified here, given that this is not a
> fast path. I guess it doesn't do any harm.
I suspected unlikely to be a hint for the compiler to do better jump
prediction and speculations. Remove?
--
Fruhwirth Clemens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://clemens.endorphin.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
