[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9pKGyATJQSnKCzmjn5rAUG6pNAAeuwwBr4TequweNd24Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:24:20 +0200
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:54 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> be nice, but if the authors of that assembly are convinced it should be replaced, then this step is optional IMO.
I think this actually makes the patchset and maintenance of it a lot
more confusing, so I'm going to abort doing this. I'd rather make the
convincing argument for the assembly anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists