-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 22 February 2002 16:45, Jari Ruusu wrote: <snip> > Am I the only person on this planet who cares about efficiency No. You seem to be the only person who does _not_ care for efficiency. loop-AES has it's own crypto stuff, freeS/WAN has it's own crypto stuff. xyz has it's own crypto stuff. That's very efficient, indeed. Both from a kernel size and from a developer time pov. > and speed? <snip> Speed is secondary. Maintainablilty and code auditing is what matters here. If more modules use common cryptographic routines instead of everyone implementing their own, bugs get fixed faster and the overall product is better. This is something _you_ don't want, obviously. You rather write the fivehundreth implementation of AES for kernel space instead of fixing the existing stuff. That wouldn't be much of a problem if you did stop bashing cryptoAPI. Yes, your code is better. It is even more performant. But it is an island solution. We don't need that, see? We need something that is _generic_. CryptoAPI is. At least it is more so than what other people have come up with. It's a _very_ good sign that the ppdd and cipe people start using cryptoAPI. It means that bugs get identified. That they are not fixed so fast as one would like is a pity. But whining that everyone starts using cryptoAPI doesn't help. Sending patches does. Bugging the maintainer to make sure they are applied, does. There's more than disc encryption out there! Marc - -- Marc Mutz <mutz@kde.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8d5+A3oWD+L2/6DgRAuZJAKCuQmMlpWowbXZhu0M2C9JeRdfdlQCcDSBJ DSUpPYSkfGhyt5EsToS/iy8= =RIhe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
