On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 07:31:16PM +0800, Herbert Xu (herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > Idea and implementation look very good, I have couple of comments on > > patches and one generic comment here: you absolutely have to write at > > least bits of documentation for this new interfaces, how they behave and > > who and how should use it :) > > Sorry, when my employer starts paying me to do that or hires > someone to do that for me is when better docs will exist :) Somehow you described that to others - just combine things together and put to Documentation/crypto and that will be enough. > Until that happens why don't you chip in and contribute some > documentation the user? It is only possible if I clearly understand the whole idea, but it is not that simple like it looks from author's point of view :) For example this patchset looks like possible first step in proper chaining mechanism for hardware devices, but if this will be impemented this way, then each hardware completion callback should be wrapped with proper geniv methods (like those which copy iv back to req->info). Is this right approach (for those users who care about correct returned IV), or will it just use software implementation only? -- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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
