[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZyYIO6RpjTFteaxH@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:08:43 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/18] crypto: crc32 - don't unnecessarily register
arch algorithms
On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 12:05:01PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> The only issue resulting from *not* taking this patch is that btrfs
> may misidentify the CRC32 implementation as being 'slow' and take an
> alternative code path, which does not necessarily result in worse
> performance.
If we were removing crc32* (or at least crc32*-arch) from the Crypto
API then these patches would be redundant. But if we're keeping them
because btrfs uses them then we should definitely make crc32*-arch
do the right thing. IOW they should not be registered if they're
the same as crc32*-generic.
Thanks,
--
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