On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:38:41 +0000 "Hsieh, Che-Min" <chem...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> If a driver supports multiple instances of HW crypto engines, the order of > the request completion from HW can be different from the order of requests > submitted to different HW. The 2nd request sent out to the 2nd HW instance > may take shorter time to complete than the first request for different HW > instance. Is the driver responsible for re-ordering the completion callout? > Or the agents (such as IP protocol stack) are responsible for reordering? How > does pcrypt do it? > > Does it make sense for a transform to send multiple requests outstanding to > async crypto api? see: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cryptoapi/5350 > Is scatterwalk_sg_next() preferred method over sg_next()? Why? scatterwalk_* is the crypto subsystem's version of the function, so yes. > sg_copy_to_buffer() and sg_copy_from_buffer() -> > sg_copy_buffer()->sg_copy_buffer() -> sg_miter_next()-> sg_next() > Sometimes sg_copy_to_buffer() and sg_copy_from_buffer() in our driver do not > copy the whole list. We have to rewrite those functions by using > scattewalk_sg_next() to walk down the list. Is this the correct behavior? sounds like you're on the right track, although buffers shouldn't be being copied that often, if at all. Kim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
