netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/6] tls: Add generic NIC offload infrastructure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20171220.111208.1328340432834146497.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:12:08 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     borisp@...lanox.com
Cc:     jiri@...nulli.us, ilyal@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davejwatson@...com, tom@...bertland.com,
        hannes@...essinduktion.org, aviadye@...lanox.com,
        liranl@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/6] tls: Add generic NIC offload
 infrastructure

From: Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:28:03 +0000

> Dave, would you prefer to get the driver patches that use this infra
> before the infra?

The arguments you present are silly.

In order to analyze any proposed API, the users of it must be presented
for the reviewers to see as well.

Logically, you must have tried to make use of the APIs to see how well
they work and are usable for at least one such user, right?

Therefore, the use case exists, and you must present it alongside the
API proposal.

Whether you provide the API addition patches and the user in the same
patch series, or a separate one, doesn't really matter.  What is
important is that this is accessible to the reviewer at the same
time.