On Tue, Oct 30 2007, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:50:58AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > How so? The reason you changed it to sg_init_table() + sg_set_buf() is
> > exactly because sg_init_one() didn't properly init the entry (as they
> > name promised).
>
> For one of the cases
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:50:58AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> How so? The reason you changed it to sg_init_table() + sg_set_buf() is
> exactly because sg_init_one() didn't properly init the entry (as they
> name promised).
For one of the cases yes but the other one repeatedly calls
sg_init_one o
On Tue, Oct 30 2007, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29 2007 at 22:16 +0200, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26 2007, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> [CRYPTO] tcrypt: Move sg_init_table out of timing loops
> >>
> >> This patch moves the sg_init_table out of the timing loops for hash
On Mon, Oct 29 2007 at 22:16 +0200, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26 2007, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> [CRYPTO] tcrypt: Move sg_init_table out of timing loops
>>
>> This patch moves the sg_init_table out of the timing loops for hash
>> algorithms so that it doesn't impact on the spee
