* richih.mailingl...@gmail.com | 2010-02-10 02:17:39 [+0100]:
From: Richard Hartmann richih.mailingl...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Richard Hartmann richih.mailingl...@gmail.com
---
crypto/arc4.c |9 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
I've made this whitespace fixes
Hi,
It seems that there is a mistake in the implementation of
int blkcipher_walk_done(struct blkcipher_desc *desc,
struct blkcipher_walk *walk, int err)
blkcipher_walk_virt() will call crypto_kmap() to map page.
But in the case then err argument is 0 and we cannot continue then
Hi,
Anyway, crypto driver is called with CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_SLEEP flag set.
It basically mean it can sleep.
But it is not because of kmap_atomic()
So no possibility to know if to use GFP_KERNEL or GFP_ATOMIC.
I guess that is not correct way.
If driver cannot sleep then CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_SLEEP
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:28, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
sebat...@breakpoint.cc wrote:
I've made this whitespace fixes and a few others while re-writting it
yesterday. So I've taken care of this allready.
OK. Thanks for getting back to me :)
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:41:03 +0100 Richard Hartmann wrote:
Signed-off-by: Richard Hartmann richih.mailingl...@gmail.com
---
Well, I will gladly disagree. checkpatch is an advisory tool.
It has no such final authority to enforce /must/.
/must/ would OK on syntax errors that must be fixed
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 17:49, Randy Dunlap rdun...@xenotime.net wrote:
Well, I will gladly disagree. Â checkpatch is an advisory tool.
It has no such final authority to enforce /must/.
/must/ would OK on syntax errors that must be fixed before they will compile.
fwiw, Joe Perches raised the
Herbert,
Here is the patch to fix it. I missed an important fact that the digest of vmac
is not a string or a char array, but an 64bit integer.
This patch is to fix the vmac algorithm, add more test cases for vmac, and fix
the test failure on some big endian system like s390.
(the attachment
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 03:21:26AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
Obviously, this should have been named
CRYPTO: Fix checkpatch errors warnings in compress.c
Should I re-send the patch or is it less noise hassle if I just leave
it this way?
You don't have to resend it.
Thanks,
--
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:59:11 +0100 Richard Hartmann wrote:
PS: As I am new to the whole concept of touching the large scary kernel
let me use this opportunity to ask if I should expect answers on the
other patch emails or if they are just merged zsh-style: Silently and
you will notice what
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 06:22, Randy Dunlap rdun...@xenotime.net wrote:
OK, since nobody else has tried to answer this, I'll give it a shot.
[...]
HTH.
Thanks a lot. You definitely did help.
I understand that checkpatch is not the highest priority and I am OK
with that. It's just the best
10 matches
Mail list logo
