On Tue, Oct 30 2007, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:50:58AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > How so? The reason you changed it to sg_init_table() + sg_set_buf() is > > exactly because sg_init_one() didn't properly init the entry (as they > > name promised). > > For one of the cases yes but the other one repeatedly calls > sg_init_one on the same sg entry while we really only need > to initialise it once and call sg_set_buf afterwards. > > Normally this is irrelevant but the loops in question are > trying to estimate the speed of the algorithms so it's good > to exclude as much noise from them as possible. Ah OK, I was referring to the replacement mentioned above. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
