Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Phil Sutter | 2010-06-10 20:22:29 [+0200]:
Hello everyone,
Hi Phil,
please take look at [0] and [1]. From README I can tell that those two
posts are different from you have so far.
You might want to take a look at AF_PACKET interface. It does zero copy
* Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos | 2010-06-11 09:47:15 [+0200]:
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Phil Sutter | 2010-06-10 20:22:29 [+0200]:
The problem with right or wrong is that they are only known afterwards.
For me the right way to go is _to go_. I can see discussions in this
least, years ago on
Hey,
Seems like I'm stabbing into open wounds. :) First of all, thanks a lot
for your comments.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:08:56AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos | 2010-06-11 09:47:15 [+0200]:
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Phil Sutter | 2010-06-10
Hey Bigeasy,
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:14:33PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
please take look at [0] and [1]. From README I can tell that those two
posts are different from you have so far.
Hmm. Indeed, using something like AF_CRYPTO didn't come to my mind so
far. Though I'm not
Hello everyone,
my employer wants to have a lightweight, zero-copy user space interface
to the Crypto-API and I *think* I'm on the right way to realising this.
What I've got so far is just a proof-of-concept, tested only with
cbc(aes), merely as generic as I'd like it to be, but with zero-copy
* Phil Sutter | 2010-06-10 20:22:29 [+0200]:
Hello everyone,
Hi Phil,
please take look at [0] and [1]. From README I can tell that those two
posts are different from you have so far.
You might want to take a look at AF_PACKET interface. It does zero copy
via a ring buffer interface of pre-mmaped
