Am Donnerstag, 16. Juni 2016, 21:39:17 schrieb Raveendra Padasalagi: Hi Raveendra,
> I need some clarification to address your comment > > "Shouldn't there be a priority here?" > > What I know regarding priority value for an algorithm > is higher the priority value it will be get selected for execution. > > For example, let's say for software implementation of the algorithm if > priority value > is specified as 100 and hardware driver implementation of the same > algorithm uses > the priority value of 300 then hardware algo is what selected for execution. > > I just had a look at priority value specified for other hash > algorithm's and none of the > software implementation specify any value, So it will be 0. > > I think it's okay to not to specify any priority value for software > implementation, > as hardware implementation can use non zero value if it needs higher > priority. > > What's your opinion ? You are fully correct. To be in line with the other hashes, maybe let us leave it at 0. I was thinking about "backend" ciphers that should never ever be selected (like the Intel AES-NI examples) which should have a lower prio than any other cipher. But then, they have unique cra_names, so it does not really matter :-) Ciao Stephan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
