Re: crypto API and IBM z990 hardware support

["David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>]

   From: Roland Dreier <roland@topspin.com>
   Date: 07 Jul 2003 20:37:09 -0700
   
   Still, I think there is a lot to be said for keeping arch code in
   arch/xxx and include/asm-xxx.  It means that someone working on a
   new port (I don't necessarily mean a totally new arch, but also
   adding support for some new CPU model or platform) has a
   well-defined set of directories to look at.
   
I again disagree.  We're talking about things here where
the default you get is _working_.

Only if you want to enhance or _optimize_ your port do you
need to modify any of this crap.

In this way it's fundamentally different from things that
one normally finds under arch/foo and include/asm-foo

   It's also nice that the xxx-arch maintainers can say "we are the rulers
   of arch/xxx and include/asm-xxx" and know that any changes outside of
   those directories have to go through lkml.
   
This isn't nice, it's rather bad for this case.

I think it'd be great that the "crypto maintainer" can be the one
by which "crypto changes" need to go through.  So again, I totally
disagree with your assesment.

   Still, I don't think I would like it if we had
   
           alpha/ arm/ arm26/ cris/ h8300/ i386/ ia64/ m68k/ m68knommu/
           mips/ mips64/ parisc ppc/ ppc64/ s390/ sh/ sparc/ sparc64/ um/
           v850/ x86_64/ generic/
   
   directories scattered all over the source tree.
   
I see no problem with this at all.  In fact, I wish we had a much
higher directory to file ratio in the kernel tree.

And hey, if I went "find crypto -type d -name sparc" I'd know if there
are sparc optimizations for the crypto library.  How might you do this
with the current "everything and it's mother under arch/" scheme?
Answer: you can't.