Adrian Bunk wrote: > That is not specifically against this patch, but before we add another > AES implementation, I'd like to find a better solution for the general > AES selection.
That would be nice as I didn't like having to duplicate a whole Kconfig entry which in fact means that it is triplicated now. I'm fine with any solution here but I do believe whatever solution is for the crypto maintainers to decide. [snip] >>+ depends on CRYPTO && (X86 && !X86_64) >>+ depends on CRYPTO && X86 && !X86_64 >>... > > > This doesn't make any difference. > > I think the former version was better readable, but that's no strong > opinion. This was only personal preference during development and actually you're right, the former version is better readable. -- Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
