linux-kernel - Re: cpu_active vs pcrypt & padata

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:42:34 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	steffen.klassert@...unet.com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: cpu_active vs pcrypt & padata

On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 03:32 -0700, David Miller wrote:

> Beats me, but just because there's only one user doesn't mean it belongs
> tucked away in that one user's subsystem.

Sure, but I was mostly wondering wth it was, the file doesn't really
explain itself. 

Also, most times when introducing generic functionality people try to
collect all interested parties and make something that works for
everybody.

I know for a fact that btrfs does the fan out and regroup thing for
block checksumming etc.. Does Chris even know it exists? If he does why
isn't brtfs using it? If its unsuitable, why wasn't it fixed.

I'm not saying its crap or anything -- I haven't looked at it at all,
beyond my grep for cpu_active -- I'm just wondering, and so far it looks
like there's something weird.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/