On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:50:35PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:52:17PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > > Hmm... I guess there is no problem. crypto_alg object fetched by > > crypto_get_comp() introduced in this patch could be hardware device > > algorithm which is same one that we can eventually fetch from tfm object. > > So, this approach would correctly track the crypto_alg regardless > > it is a hardware one or not. If there is some dependency between > > algorithm and tfm, it can't support _noctx API. Am I missing > > something? > > Your approach limits what hardware devices we can support in > future. It is fairly common for hardware drivers to only allocate > resources when a tfm is created. With your tfmless interface, > the driver would have to unconditionally allocate resources. Ah...Okay. thanks for clarifying. > > It is essentially a global tfm without the tfm. > > > Yes, I thought this way before, but, current way is much simpler so > > I try it first. If it is not acceptable, I will implement this > > approach. > > Please go with a global tfm. Okay. Will do that in next spin. Thanks. -- 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
