From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750848AbWFEXfe (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 19:35:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750833AbWFEXfe (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 19:35:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:34249 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750827AbWFEXfd (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 19:35:33 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: Joachim Fritschi Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Twofish cipher - x86_64 assembler Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 01:35:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au References: <200606041516.46920.jfritschi@freenet.de> <200606042110.15060.ak@suse.de> <200606051206.50085.jfritschi@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: <200606051206.50085.jfritschi@freenet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606060135.26823.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 05 June 2006 12:06, Joachim Fritschi wrote: > On Sunday 04 June 2006 21:10, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Sunday 04 June 2006 15:16, Joachim Fritschi wrote: > > > This patch adds the twofish x86_64 assembler routine. > > > > > > Changes since last version: > > > - The keysetup is now handled by the twofish_common.c (see patch 1 ) > > > - The last round of the encrypt/decrypt routines where optimized saving 5 > > > instructions. > > > > > > Correctness was verified with the tcrypt module and automated test > > > scripts. > > > > Do you have some benchmark numbers that show that it's actually worth > > it? > > Here are the outputs from the tcrypt speedtests. They haven't changed much > since the last patch: Ok thanks. I've tried to apply the patches, but can't because they're word wrapped. Can you please resend and do a test send to yourself first, checking that the patch can be really applied. > There might be some way to further improve readability but i have not found > any other way. I'm open to suggestions :) Sounds reasonable. Best you just fix the comment to say that this convention is needed for the macros. -Andi