On Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:51:55 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, July 20, 2013 05:06:29 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 20, 2013 02:00:44 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 19, 2013 04:16:30 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at
On Saturday, July 20, 2013 05:06:29 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, July 20, 2013 02:00:44 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, July 19, 2013 04:16:30 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:38:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Alas, this is not the
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 06:31:04PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
>
> However, when I have the library and generic algorithm compiled in,
> I do not see the PCLMULQDQ version loaded.
>
> CONFIG_CRYPTO_CRCT10DIF=y
> CONFIG_CRYPTO_CRCT10DIF_PCLMUL=m
> CONFIG_CRC_T10DIF=y
That is completely expected. I don
On Saturday, July 20, 2013 02:00:44 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 19, 2013 04:16:30 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:38:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Alas, this is not the one I'd like to apply.
> > >
> > > With that patch applied, new device
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 16:37 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 09:24 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:21:09PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >
> > > The issue here seems to be the dynamic binding nature of the crypto
> > > subsystem. When something needs crypto
On Friday, July 19, 2013 04:16:30 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:38:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Alas, this is not the one I'd like to apply.
> >
> > With that patch applied, new device objects are created to avoid binding the
> > processor driver directly to
On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 09:24 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:21:09PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > The issue here seems to be the dynamic binding nature of the crypto
> > subsystem. When something needs crypto, it will request the appropriate
> > crypto module (e.g. crc
On 07/19/2013 04:26 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>> RAID has effectively the same issue, and we just "solved" it by
>> compiling in all the accelerators into the top-level module.
>
> Then there's nothing to be done in udev or kmod, right?
>
I don't know.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe fr
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:21:09PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> The issue here seems to be the dynamic binding nature of the crypto
> subsystem. When something needs crypto, it will request the appropriate
> crypto module (e.g. crct10dif), which may race with detecting a specific
> hardware ac
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:21:09PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 04:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > udev isn't doing any module loading, 'modprobe' is just being called for
> > any new module alias that shows up in the system, and all of the drivers
> > that match it then g
On 07/19/2013 04:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> udev isn't doing any module loading, 'modprobe' is just being called for
> any new module alias that shows up in the system, and all of the drivers
> that match it then get loaded.
>
> How is it a problem if a module is attempted to be loaded
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:38:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Alas, this is not the one I'd like to apply.
>
> With that patch applied, new device objects are created to avoid binding the
> processor driver directly to the cpu system device objects, because that
> apparently confuses udev a
On Friday, July 19, 2013 11:08:49 AM Tim Chen wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 16:49 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > This should cause udev to load the crct10dif_pclml module when cpu
> > > > > > support the PCLMULQDQ (feature code 0081). I did my testing during
> > > > > > development o
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 16:49 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > This should cause udev to load the crct10dif_pclml module when cpu
> > > > > support the PCLMULQDQ (feature code 0081). I did my testing during
> > > > > development on 3.10 and the module was indeed loaded.
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Friday, July 19, 2013 03:03:36 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, July 18, 2013 04:08:14 PM Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 00:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On 7/18/2013 11:00 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 12:47 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > >>
On Thursday, July 18, 2013 04:08:14 PM Tim Chen wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 00:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On 7/18/2013 11:00 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 12:47 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >> Tim Chen wrote:
> > > Your approach is quite complicated. I think
On Thursday, July 18, 2013 04:44:20 PM H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 03:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >> alias x86cpu:vendor:*:family:*:model:*:feature:*0081* crct10dif_pclmul
> >>
> >> This should cause udev to load the crct10dif_pclml module when cpu
> >> support the PCLMULQDQ (f
On 07/18/2013 03:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> alias x86cpu:vendor:*:family:*:model:*:feature:*0081* crct10dif_pclmul
>>
>> This should cause udev to load the crct10dif_pclml module when cpu
>> support the PCLMULQDQ (feature code 0081). I did my testing during
>> development on 3.10 and th
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 00:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On 7/18/2013 11:00 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 12:47 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> Tim Chen wrote:
> > Your approach is quite complicated. I think something simpler like the
> > following will work:
> We
On 7/18/2013 11:00 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 12:47 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Tim Chen wrote:
Your approach is quite complicated. I think something simpler like the
following will work:
We cannot benefit from PCLMULQDQ. Is it acceptable for you?
The following code in crct10d
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 12:47 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Tim Chen wrote:
> > > > Your approach is quite complicated. I think something simpler like the
> > > > following will work:
> > >
> > > We cannot benefit from PCLMULQDQ. Is it acceptable for you?
> >
> >
> > The following code in crct10dif
Tim Chen wrote:
> > > Your approach is quite complicated. I think something simpler like the
> > > following will work:
> >
> > We cannot benefit from PCLMULQDQ. Is it acceptable for you?
>
>
> The following code in crct10dif-pclmul_glue.c
>
> static const struct x86_cpu_id crct10dif_cpu_id[] =
22 matches
Mail list logo
