RE: [PATCH] to fix vmac test fails on s390

2010-02-19 Thread Wang, Shane
Herbert Xu wrote: > Sorry but you can't fix it like this. Your hash output must be > invariant with respect to endianness. > > That means, whether I run it on a big-endian machine or a little- > endian one it should produce the same output. > > Otherwise this hash will be totally useless as soon

Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors

2010-02-19 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 02:59:44AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote: > > In this case, please hold seed, tcrypt, wp512 & xcbc. I will > refactor them. OK. > The last batch of patches did not have any of these changes. Thanks for checking. -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbe

Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors

2010-02-19 Thread Richard Hartmann
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 01:46, Herbert Xu wrote: > I'm just dropping this particular change.  If there are any > other ones where you've done a similar thing, then please either > revise or drop those. In this case, please hold seed, tcrypt, wp512 & xcbc. I will refactor them. The last batch of

Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors

2010-02-19 Thread Herbert Xu
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 05:35:35PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 13:17, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > FWIW I don't like this change so I'm dropping it. > > Dropping the change or the whole patch? I.e. should I resubmit > without that part? I'm just dropping this particular

Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors

2010-02-19 Thread Richard Hartmann
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 13:17, Herbert Xu wrote: > FWIW I don't like this change so I'm dropping it. Dropping the change or the whole patch? I.e. should I resubmit without that part? Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to

Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors

2010-02-19 Thread Herbert Xu
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:10:47AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote: > > If this change is actually controversial, I have no problem removing > this part from the patch. However, it is my _strong_ feeling, that it is > beneficial to keep it. FWIW I don't like this change so I'm dropping it. Cheers,

Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors

2010-02-19 Thread Richard Hartmann
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 02:48, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Why did you replaced a tab with spaces here?? The first tab is indentation, displaying the logical nesting level. The second tab including the whitespaces after it was formatting. Although the official tab width in the linux kernel is 8