[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aETPdvg8qXv18MDu@zx2c4.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 17:47:02 -0600
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] lib/crc: improve how arch-optimized code is
integrated
On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 01:04:42PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Having arch-specific code outside arch/ was somewhat controversial when
> Zinc proposed it back in 2018. But I don't think the concerns are
> warranted. It's better from a technical perspective, as it enables the
> improvements mentioned above. This model is already successfully used
> in other places in the kernel such as lib/raid6/. The community of each
> architecture still remains free to work on the code, even if it's not in
> arch/. At the time there was also a desire to put the library code in
> the same files as the old-school crypto API, but that was a mistake; now
> that the library is separate, that's no longer a constraint either.
I can't express how happy I am to see this revived. It's clearly the
right way forward and makes it a lot simpler for us to dispatch to
various arch implementations and also is organizationally simpler.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists