From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: arm/aes-neonbs - process 8 blocks in parallel if we can Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:23:48 +0800 Message-ID: <20161229022348.GA13402@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <1481291246-20216-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20161227085745.GA10121@gondor.apana.org.au> <20161228091020.GE11904@gondor.apana.org.au> <20161228092328.GA12494@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" To: Ard Biesheuvel Return-path: Received: from helcar.hengli.com.au ([209.40.204.226]:39483 "EHLO helcar.apana.org.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752104AbcL2CYB (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:24:01 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 07:50:44PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > So about this chunksize, is it ever expected to assume other values > than 1 (for stream ciphers) or the block size (for block ciphers)? > Having block size, IV size *and* chunk size fields may be confusing to > some already, so if the purpose of chunk size can be fulfilled by a > single 'stream cipher' flag, perhaps we should change that first. For users (such as algif) it's much more convenient to have a size rather than a flag because that's what they need to determine the minimum size for partial updates. For implementors you don't need to specify the chunksize at all unless you're a stream cipher (or some other case in future where the minimum partial update size is not equal to your block size). Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt