On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 01:44:18PM -0600, Jake Edge wrote:
> Not sure it's useful (or even the right way to go about it), but, if it
> is, Greg (or Jason or whoever) can add my:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jake Edge
>
Yep. Great. Greg will add it.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:21:12 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote:
> So, Jake, you're right, but if he redoes patch 2/6 then he has to redo
> the rest as well. The bad names were bad in the original code already,
> so normally we let people fix things up in follow on patches in that
> case.
>
> Is that ok
So, Jake, you're right, but if he redoes patch 2/6 then he has to redo
the rest as well. The bad names were bad in the original code already,
so normally we let people fix things up in follow on patches in that
case.
Is that ok with you?
I totally do appreciate your review comments and agree
On Mon, 19 May 2014 12:09:55 +0400 Anton Saraev wrote:
> struct skein_ctx_hdr {
> - size_t hashBitLen; /* size of hash result, in bits */
> - size_t bCnt; /* current byte count in buffer b[] */
> - u64 T[SKEIN_MODIFIER_WORDS]; /* tweak: T[0]=byte
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:09:55PM +0400, Anton Saraev wrote:
> #if SKEIN_UNROLL_256 == 0
> -#define R256(p0, p1, p2, p3, ROT, rNum) /* fully unrolled */ \
> +#define R256(p0, p1, p2, p3, ROT, r_num) /* fully unrolled */ \
> do { \
> - Round256(p0, p1, p2, p3, ROT, rNum) \
> -
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:09:55PM +0400, Anton Saraev wrote:
#if SKEIN_UNROLL_256 == 0
-#define R256(p0, p1, p2, p3, ROT, rNum) /* fully unrolled */ \
+#define R256(p0, p1, p2, p3, ROT, r_num) /* fully unrolled */ \
do { \
- Round256(p0, p1, p2, p3, ROT, rNum) \
-
On Mon, 19 May 2014 12:09:55 +0400 Anton Saraev wrote:
struct skein_ctx_hdr {
- size_t hashBitLen; /* size of hash result, in bits */
- size_t bCnt; /* current byte count in buffer b[] */
- u64 T[SKEIN_MODIFIER_WORDS]; /* tweak: T[0]=byte cnt,
So, Jake, you're right, but if he redoes patch 2/6 then he has to redo
the rest as well. The bad names were bad in the original code already,
so normally we let people fix things up in follow on patches in that
case.
Is that ok with you?
I totally do appreciate your review comments and agree
On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:21:12 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote:
So, Jake, you're right, but if he redoes patch 2/6 then he has to redo
the rest as well. The bad names were bad in the original code already,
so normally we let people fix things up in follow on patches in that
case.
Is that ok with
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 01:44:18PM -0600, Jake Edge wrote:
Not sure it's useful (or even the right way to go about it), but, if it
is, Greg (or Jason or whoever) can add my:
Reviewed-by: Jake Edge j...@lwn.net
Yep. Great. Greg will add it.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from
10 matches
Mail list logo
