On Sunday 18 November 2007 05:04:01 Herbert Xu wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > > On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable > > for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would > > make a lot more sense to return the time to wait to the core, instead > > of waiting 10us in all cases. 256 cycles at a speed of 266MHz comes > > down to 0.96us, so we're waiting about 10 times as long as necessary. > > Since its busy waiting anyway, I'd think that from a performance POV > > constant polling or returning the exact amount of time would be more > > reasonable. > > I agree, a better interface would be to let the hardware do the > blocking where necessary. > > Michael, what do you think about this? Patches are welcome. ;) -- Greetings Michael. - 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
