On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:38:41 +0000 "Hsieh, Che-Min" <cheminh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If a driver supports multiple instances of HW crypto engines, the order of the request completion from HW can be different from the order of requests submitted to different HW. The 2nd request sent out to the 2nd HW instance may take shorter time to complete than the first request for different HW instance. Is the driver responsible for re-ordering the completion callout? Or the agents (such as IP protocol stack) are responsible for reordering? How does pcrypt do it? > > Does it make sense for a transform to send multiple requests outstanding to async crypto api? see: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cryptoapi/5350 > Is scatterwalk_sg_next() preferred method over sg_next()? Why? scatterwalk_* is the crypto subsystem's version of the function, so yes. > sg_copy_to_buffer() and sg_copy_from_buffer() -> sg_copy_buffer()->sg_copy_buffer() -> sg_miter_next()-> sg_next() > Sometimes sg_copy_to_buffer() and sg_copy_from_buffer() in our driver do not copy the whole list. We have to rewrite those functions by using scattewalk_sg_next() to walk down the list. Is this the correct behavior? sounds like you're on the right track, although buffers shouldn't be being copied that often, if at all. Kim -- 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
