On Tuesday 06 November 2007 14:23, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:48:29PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > On Thursday 25 October 2007 12:43, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > Hi Hervert,
> > > 
> > > Please review and maybe propagate upstream following patches.
> > > 
> > > camellia5.diff
> > >     Use alternative key setup implementation with mostly 64-bit ops
> > >     if BITS_PER_LONG >= 64. Both much smaller and much faster.
> > > 
> > >     Unify camellia_en/decrypt128/256 into camellia_do_en/decrypt.
> > >     Code was similar, with just one additional if() we can use came code.
> > > 
> > >     If CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE is defined,
> > >     use loop in camellia_do_en/decrypt instead of unrolled code.
> > >     ~5% encrypt/decrypt slowdown.
> 
> Having two versions of the cdoe is unmaintainable.  So please
> either decide that 5% is worth it or isn't.

*I* am happy with 5% speed sacrifice. I'm afraid other people won't be.

I just want to escape vicious cycle of -Os people arguing with
-O2 people to no end. I don't want somebody to come later
and unroll the loop again. And then me to come
and de-unroll it again...

It's better for everybody to recognize that both POVs are valid,
and have provisions for tuning size/speed tradeoff by the user
(person which builds the binary).

That's why I made a patch where unrolling can be enabled by CONFIG_xxx.

If you disagree with me and don't want this type of selectability,
the updated patch is attached.

Thanks!
--
vda