Re: [RFC 1/2] SPU-AES support (kernel side)

2007-07-12 Thread Sebastian Siewior
* Herbert Xu | 2007-07-12 12:36:13 [+0800]: >On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:00:27AM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote: >> >> +static int enqueue_request(struct ablkcipher_request *req, >> +enum SPU_FUNCTIONS op_type) >> +{ >> +struct async_d_request *asy_d_ctx = ablkcipher_request_ctx(req

Re: [RFC 0/2] AES ablkcipher driver for SPUs

2007-07-12 Thread Herbert Xu
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 09:18:33AM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote: > > If there is a new IV on *every* request and I don't have to write the IV back > than I put it in my request struct next to the source address :). This indeed > solves my problem. What about jumbo frames in IPsec? Do I get 16 con

Re: [RFC 1/2] SPU-AES support (kernel side)

2007-07-12 Thread Herbert Xu
Sebastian Siewior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Limit means you want me to drop requests after a certain limit (i.e. > when my queue is full)? Yep, there's no point in holding onto lots of requests if the hardware simply can't catch up. > I would have to start an extra thread that removes reques

Re: [RFC 1/2] SPU-AES support (kernel side)

2007-07-12 Thread Sebastian Siewior
* Herbert Xu | 2007-07-12 16:03:55 [+0800]: >Sebastian Siewior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Limit means you want me to drop requests after a certain limit (i.e. >> when my queue is full)? > >Yep, there's no point in holding onto lots of requests if the >hardware simply can't catch up. Makes se