Krishna Yenduri wrote: > Mark, > > Thanks for the review. > >> Your proposal looks fine to me. That's a nice performance improvement. >> >> I wonder if CRYPTO_ALWAYS_SYNCHRONOUS would be a better name? >> >> > > The term, BLOCKING, is needed in the name since we are > considering another flag to indicate nonblocking. The term > ALWAYS is implicit. > > How about CRYPTO_SYNCH_BLOCKING (the other flag > to come can be CRYPTO_SYNCH_NONBLOCKING)? >
Drop the SYNC then. Or you could bump the SPI version number and let the unset flag mean NONBLOCKING? > Thanks, > -Krishna > _______________________________________________ > crypto-discuss mailing list > crypto-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/crypto-discuss >
