On Tuesday 02 June 2009 09:20:38 Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 09:01:42AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > I can't reproduce this with 2.6.30-rc7.
> >
> > I'll rebase my cryptodev tree to 2.6.30-rcX and see if I can still
> > reproduce the problem.
>
> I just rebased cryptodev a
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 09:01:42AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>
> > I can't reproduce this with 2.6.30-rc7.
>
> I'll rebase my cryptodev tree to 2.6.30-rcX and see if I can still
> reproduce the problem.
I just rebased cryptodev against 2.6.30-rc7 today so please let
me know whether you can still
On Tuesday 02 June 2009 01:10:27 Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > While doing a bit of testing of some other crypto code, I've repeatedly
> > noticed a sha384 self-test failure. If you 'modprobe tcrypt', the
> > sha384 self-test fails, then immediately after it, sha384-generic
> > self-
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 11:21:51AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
>
> The reason for the wrap work is to have a possibility to choose a
> certain version of an algorithm as the system default. The advantage
> e.g. for pcrypt is that we can turn over the whole system to pcrypt,
> or we can choose f
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 01:50:41PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> Hmm, it seems that this patch is completely intertwined into the
> rest of the patches so we can't just kill it. Can you elaborate
> on the rationale behind this wrap work? I'm curious to find out
> what we gain by this over the much
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 15:12 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > I believe geode_aes can be fixed by either (1) removing the MODULE_ALIAS
> > declaration or (2) making the module initialisation function fail if the
> > device is not present. The latter behaviour is generally w
