On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:19:40PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:12:13AM +0200, LABBE Corentin wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:32:59PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 03:32:01PM +0200, LABBE Corentin wrote: > > > > The current crypto engine allow only ablkcipher_request to be enqueued. > > > > Thus denying any use of it for hardware that also handle hash algo. > > > > > > > > This patch convert all ablkcipher_request references to the > > > > more general crypto_async_request. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: LABBE Corentin <clabbe.montj...@gmail.com> > > > > > > First of all your patches break bisection which is unacceptable. > > > > > > > How do I break bisection ? > > Because the kernel won't compile after your first patch. > > Either do it as one single patch or use the more elaborate "new > interafce" + "switchover" + "delete old interface" ritual. >
Since my patch is small and easy (and only one client is modified), do you mind if I choose the first one ? > > So, if my hwcrypto can handle hash and ciphers, I need to have two engine > > and each crypt_one_request()/hash_one_request() > > need to lock the engine. > > Having only one engine that handle all types permit to avoid this locking. > > OK then we should add some type-checking as you suggested. What > I don't want is just blind casting by the user of crypto_engine. I will add this type checking on my patch against omap-aes/des. Regards -- 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
