Hi, On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:56:46PM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > I like the implementation and the idea. A question would be why use > read()/write() > instead say of new ioctls (e.g. CIOCCRYPT_ASYNC)?
The motivation behind read() and write() is being able to fetch or push more than a single struct crypt_op at once. When aiming for async operation, one probably wants to prevent any blocking. For the write() case, there is poll() as de-facto standard for ensuring a write is possible without blocking. You may say that I can't use poll() to find out how much can be written, so when trying to write e.g. five objects at once, it could block after the third. Ideally, one can configure the length of the free queue (or have dynamic reallocation of list items), so any application doing batch operations like that in an asynchronous manner does actually know how much can be pushed at once. I guess the best reason for using read/write/poll is probably the well known programming interface. OTOH the kernel-side would indeed be a lot easier when ioctls were used. Greetings, Phil -- Viprinet GmbH Mainzer Str. 43 55411 Bingen am Rhein Germany Zentrale: +49-6721-49030-0 Durchwahl: +49-6721-49030-134 Fax: +49-6721-49030-209 phil.sut...@viprinet.com http://www.viprinet.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bingen am Rhein Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Mainz HRB40380 Geschäftsführer: Simon Kissel _______________________________________________ Cryptodev-linux-devel mailing list Cryptodev-linux-devel@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/cryptodev-linux-devel
