On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 05:01:40PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> From: Eric Biggers
>
> I found that not only was sha256_mb sometimes computing the wrong digest
> (fixed by a separately sent patch), but under normal workloads it's
> hundreds of times slower than sha256-avx2, due to the flush
From: Eric Biggers
I found that not only was sha256_mb sometimes computing the wrong digest
(fixed by a separately sent patch), but under normal workloads it's
hundreds of times slower than sha256-avx2, due to the flush delay. The
same applies to sha1_mb and sha512_mb. Yet, currently these can
