From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261453AbVDQTyh (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:54:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261454AbVDQTyh (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:54:37 -0400 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:62994 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261453AbVDQTyM (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:54:12 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:54:07 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Andreas Steinmetz Cc: Linux Kernel Mailinglist , jmorris@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, ak@suse.de, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] AES assembler implementation for x86_64 Message-ID: <20050417195406.GC3625@stusta.de> References: <4262B6F5.4060907@domdv.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4262B6F5.4060907@domdv.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 09:20:21PM +0200, Andreas Steinmetz wrote: > The attached patch contains the required changes for the crypto Kconfig > to enable the usage of the x86_64 AES assembler implementation. That is not specifically against this patch, but before we add another AES implementation, I'd like to find a better solution for the general AES selection. My original thoughts on this issue are in [1], but this didn't attack the problem of CRYPTO_DEV_PADLOCK_AES where it might not be known at compile time whether the hardware will be present. > Andreas Steinmetz > diff -rNu linux-2.6.11.2.orig/crypto/Kconfig linux-2.6.11.2/crypto/Kconfig > --- linux-2.6.11.2.orig/crypto/Kconfig 2005-03-09 09:12:53.000000000 +0100 > +++ linux-2.6.11.2/crypto/Kconfig 2005-04-17 13:10:51.000000000 +0200 >... > config CRYPTO_AES_586 > tristate "AES cipher algorithms (i586)" > - depends on CRYPTO && (X86 && !X86_64) > + depends on CRYPTO && X86 && !X86_64 >... This doesn't make any difference. I think the former version was better readable, but that's no strong opinion. cu Adrian [1] http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0502.3/0518.html -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed