Hi Courtney, Thanks for the review! On 04/04/2014 02:38 AM, Courtney Cavin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:17:58PM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote: >> This adds core driver files. The core part is implementing a >> platform driver probe and remove callbaks, the probe enables >> clocks, checks crypto version, initialize and request dma >> channels, create done tasklet and work queue and finally >> register the algorithms into crypto subsystem. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 333 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/crypto/qce/core.h | 69 ++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 402 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >> create mode 100644 drivers/crypto/qce/core.h >> >> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c > [...] >> +static struct qce_algo_ops qce_ops[] = { >> + { >> + .type = CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_ABLKCIPHER, >> + .register_alg = qce_ablkcipher_register, >> + }, >> + { >> + .type = CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_AHASH, >> + .register_alg = qce_ahash_register, >> + }, >> +}; >> + >> +static void qce_unregister_algs(struct qce_device *qce) >> +{ >> + struct qce_alg_template *tmpl, *n; >> + >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(tmpl, n, &qce->alg_list, entry) { >> + if (tmpl->crypto_alg_type == CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_AHASH) >> + crypto_unregister_ahash(&tmpl->alg.ahash); >> + else >> + crypto_unregister_alg(&tmpl->alg.crypto); >> + >> + list_del(&tmpl->entry); >> + kfree(tmpl); > > I find this whole memory/list management to be very disorganised. > ops->register_alg() is supposed to allocate this item--more precisely, > multiple items--using something that must be able to be kfree'd > directly, register it with the crypto core, and put it on this list > manually. Here we unregister/remove/free this in the core. Josh's > recommendation of a unregister_alg callback might help, but it all > remains a bit unclear with register_alg/unregister_alg managing X > algorithms per call. > > Additionally, above you have qce_ops, which clearly defines the > operations for specific algorithms types/groups, which in later patches > are shown to be seperated out into independent implementations. > > From what I can tell, this seems to be a framework with built-in yet > independent crypto implementations which call the crypto API directly. > > It would be more logical to me if this was seperated out into a > "library/core" API, with the individual implementations as platform > drivers of their own. Then they can register with the core, managing > memory how they please. > > What am I missing? > No, you have not miss nothing. OK I see your point. I made few changes in the core, killed the alg_list and its manipulation function and added a .unregister_algs operation. Now every type of algorithm will handle all core crypto api functions itself. Also I'm using devm_kzalloc() in .register_algs when allocating memory for qce_alg_template structures to avoid kfree(). The callbacks async_req_queue/done are now embedded in qce_device structure and they are invoked directly from algorithm implementations. Thus I have separated the interfaces: functions implemented in core part of the driver and struct qce_algo_ops having the function pointers implemented by every type of algorithm. If you don't have some objections I can send out a version 2. -- regards, Stan -- 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