[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1671234.vBOzL28The@tauon.atsec.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 19:02:04 +0200
From: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S.Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Sean Gulley <sean.m.gulley@...el.com>,
Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli_7982@...oo.com>,
Vinodh Gopal <vinodh.gopal@...el.com>,
James Guilford <james.guilford@...el.com>,
Wajdi Feghali <wajdi.k.feghali@...el.com>,
Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@....fi>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] crypto: [sha] glue code for Intel SHA extensions optimized SHA1 & SHA256
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2015, 17:04:31 schrieb Tim Chen:
Hi Tim,
>
>Is there a scenario you can think of
>when a lower performing sha1 transform needs to
>be exposed as a separate driver?
My immediate concern is testing: it is hard to test the individual
implementations.
>
>Otherwise the glue code logic will only expose the
>best performing one for a cpu and hide the others, which was intentional
>on our part to prevent a lower performing sha from getting used.
Agreed, but the kernel crypto API does that already using the priorities --
IMHO a very clean and easy to interpret solution.
Furthermore, if somebody really has a need to not use the fastest HW
implementation, the kernel crypto API allows him to do that. With the hard-
wired approach in the glue file, you are stuck.
Ciao
Stephan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists