> Wait, I'm confused. You mention in this note that this is an RFC patch, but not > anywhere else in the series. Are you proposing this for inclusion or not? Er, in the 0/25, I mentioned that I put the least certain stuff last, and in particular I wasn't sure if the the last three patches were wanted or not: >> Pending issues: >> * Is non-deterministic mode (last three patches) wanted? I certainly wouldn't be unhappy if they went in, but with the comment clarification just before, I wouldn't be unhappy if they didn't, either. They're "If we wanted to do this, this is how it could be done. Is this something we want to do?" Sorry if my motivations are confusing. I did indeed start with wanting to add the seeding because I misunderstood the comments: I thought this was claiming to be X9.31 *and* I haven't seen the later versions of the standaed (which you have) that back off on the requirements for the DT[] vector. Since you've patiently explained both of those to me, I'm more interested in the other, more generic code cleanups. You also sent me two detailed explanations of the consequences of making the generator non-determinsitic in a way that gave me a general impression of disliking of the idea. So I've been weaning myself off the idea. I put those patches at the end so they can easily be dropped from the series. Or, as I also mentioned, simply postponed until there's been more discussion. Since that's an actual semantic change, collecting a few other opinions would be valuable. -- 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
