On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:27:46PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Then I don't think the patch should have been applied. > > I disagree. There isn't any evidence showing that the inlined version > is significantly faster either. In the absence of that, the version > with the smaller size is preferable. Just seems very risky to mess with cipher inner loops like that. Normally people originally spent quite some effort tuning those; especially for an AES candidate. Also putting quite a lot of function calls in there doesn't seem right -- especially if frame pointer is enabled function calls are not that cheap anymore. Also it messes up the register allocation. > Of course if anyone is keen enough about cast6 to provide benchmarks If nobody is keen enough then the code could be just dropped completely, couldn't it? > showing that the inlined version is significantly faster then I'm > happy to revert the patch. There used to be papers with performance analysis of all the AES candidates, but I cannot find them right now for CAST6. But I doubt the code was written without proper thought. -Andi - 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
