[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180503230006.oq6vycplwsomfprw@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 07:00:06 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: 'Antoine Tenart' <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com" <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
"maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com" <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
"gregory.clement@...tlin.com" <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
"miquel.raynal@...tlin.com" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
"nadavh@...vell.com" <nadavh@...vell.com>,
"oferh@...vell.com" <oferh@...vell.com>,
"igall@...vell.com" <igall@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] crypto: aead - allow to allocate AEAD requests on
the stack
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:23:30PM +0200, 'Antoine Tenart' wrote:
>
> I was expecting this question :) The thing is this define looks *a lot*
> like the ones defined in other places in the crypto framework, such as
> SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK and AHASH_REQUEST_ON_STACK. Those haven't been
> tackled down so far by the whole VLA removal so the idea was that the
> same solution will apply to the 3 of them (and then I'm not really
> adding a new one).
Those constructs only exist for reasons of backwards compatibility.
There is no such reason for AEAD. So why do you need this?
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists