From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755494Ab1HUD2Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:28:16 -0400 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:41381 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752301Ab1HUD2N (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:28:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:27:53 -0400 From: "Ted Ts'o" To: George Spelvin Cc: w@1wt.eu, dan@doxpara.com, davem@davemloft.net, gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Improve sequence number generation. Message-ID: <20110821032753.GA8992@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ted Ts'o , George Spelvin , w@1wt.eu, dan@doxpara.com, davem@davemloft.net, gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org References: <20110821012844.GA15222@1wt.eu> <20110821030415.18106.qmail@science.horizon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110821030415.18106.qmail@science.horizon.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on test.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Here's a random thought --- it won't help on anything other than modern x86's, but who's to say we have to use the same algorithm on all platforms? Does the AES-NI facility provide enough of a speedup that it's worth using it instead of MD5, at least on modern x86 systems which have this support? - Ted