> -----Original Message----- > From: Herbert Xu [mailto:herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 10 March 2015 09:37 > To: Stephan Mueller > Cc: James Hartley; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; pawel.moll@xxxxxxx; > mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > andrew.bresticker@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Ezequiel Garcia; linux- > crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] crypto: Add Imagination Technologies hw hash > accelerator > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 07:35:57AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > > > >+static struct ahash_alg img_algs[] = { > > >+ { > > >+ .init = img_hash_init, > > >+ .update = img_hash_update, > > >+ .final = img_hash_final, > > >+ .finup = img_hash_finup, > > >+ .digest = img_hash_digest, > > >+ .halg = { > > >+ .digestsize = MD5_DIGEST_SIZE, > > >+ .base = { > > >+ .cra_name = "md5", > > >+ .cra_driver_name = "img-md5", > > >+ .cra_priority = 301, > > > > Just curious: why do you use such odd priorities of 301 or 3000? IMHO, > > all you need is a priority of more than 100 to "beat" the generic C > > prios. Maybe you also need to beat the standard assembler > > implementations which are routinely at 200 for hashes. So, a prio of > > 300 should suffice, should it not? > > James, can you answer Stephan's question please? Hi Herbert, and Stephan, The difficulty here is that the driver was written by a summer placement student who has since left the company, and despite searching our internal commit logs I'm unable to find any reason why 301 and 3000 are used. I am happy to set them to 300 if that is a sensible figure to use. Thanks for the review Stephan! > > Thanks, > -- > Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: > http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ > PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt James. -- 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
