On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 11:56:19AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I'm not Ingo, but:
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com
Fine to me too and for future variations thereof.
Thanks guys I'll put this into cryptodev now.
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 02:44:17PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
Old binutils do not support AES-NI instructions, to make kernel can be
compiled by them, .byte code is used instead of AES-NI assembly
instructions. But the readability and flexibility of raw .byte code is
not good.
So
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 02:56 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 02:44:17PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
Old binutils do not support AES-NI instructions, to make kernel can be
compiled by them, .byte code is used instead of AES-NI assembly
instructions. But the readability and
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:49:59AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
Yes. This is for performance only. Because crypto_gcm_reqctx(req) is not
so trivial (it needs access tfm), and used by every xxx_done function,
so I think it is better to just call crypto_gcm_reqctx once and pass it
down. Do you
The flow of the complete function (xxx_done) in gcm.c is as follow:
void complete(struct crypto_async_request *areq, int err)
{
struct aead_request *req = areq-data;
if (!err) {
err = async_next_step();
if (err == -EINPROGRESS || err == -EBUSY)
Old binutils do not support PCLMULQDQ-NI and PSHUFB, to make kernel
can be compiled by them, .byte code is used instead of assembly
instructions. But the readability and flexibility of raw .byte code is
not good.
So corresponding assembly instruction like gas macro is used instead.
Old binutils do not support AES-NI instructions, to make kernel can be
compiled by them, .byte code is used instead of AES-NI assembly
instructions. But the readability and flexibility of raw .byte code is
not good.
So corresponding assembly instruction like gas macro is used instead.
