On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:09:33PM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>
> If this is that important, isn't it better to add/ replace the current
> _aligned call with such an optimized one? Or applies this kind of
> optimization only to this special driver where it is very expensive
> otherwise?
In t
* Herbert Xu | 2007-08-02 17:28:25 [+0800]:
>On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:23:51AM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>>
>> The only difference I can see is, that crypto_tfm_alg_alignmask() is
>> replaced with a static defined number instead of a lookup in a struct.
>> IS this the optimization?
>
>Yes,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:23:51AM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>
> The only difference I can see is, that crypto_tfm_alg_alignmask() is
> replaced with a static defined number instead of a lookup in a struct.
> IS this the optimization?
Yes, the fact that the alignment mask is a constant allo
* Herbert Xu | 2007-08-02 16:58:16 [+0800]:
>On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>> It seems that the driver uses something like crypto_.*_ctx_aligned() of his
>> own.
>> Replace it with the API's functions. Compile tested.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Siewior <[
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> It seems that the driver uses something like crypto_.*_ctx_aligned() of his
> own.
> Replace it with the API's functions. Compile tested.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Siewior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Actually this is intentional as
It seems that the driver uses something like crypto_.*_ctx_aligned() of his own.
Replace it with the API's functions. Compile tested.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Siewior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- a/drivers/crypto/padlock-aes.c
+++ b/drivers/crypto/padlock-aes.c
@@ -297,30 +297,10 @@ aes_hw_extkey_avai
