On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:18:20 -0700 James Hsiao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 20:51 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > - The question on ABLKCIPHER kconfig was ignored > Is ABLKCIPHER a sub set of BLKCIPHER? So, if BLKCIPHER is selected then > if ABLKCIPHER is present, it will use ABLKCIPHER otherwise using > BLKCIPHER algorithm? Correct? this is my bad, commit 653ebd9c8510a7d647ed23e66e1338f848ebdbab "blkcipher: Merge ablkcipher and blkcipher into one option/module" renders CRYPTO_ABLKCIPHER obsolete in favour of CRYPTO_BLKCIPHER. > > - Marking functions static > We have more than one file, that is why some of the function are not > static. have one file then? > > - Global lsec_core variable which doesn't allow for more than one > > device > We only support single incidence of device. it's also a matter of unnecessarily polluting global namespace. > > - Complete lack of locking code, how do you enforce mutually exclusive > > access to the device? > > The crypto engine have couple bits 'command ready' and 'packet done', > which servers as semaphore here. So, software don't need extra locking. know if it's applicable at all, but I imagine it's not SMP safe. Kim _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
