On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:02:42 +0200 Romain Perier <romain.perier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Now that the dma specific fields are part of the base request there's no > > reason to keep this union. > > > > You can just put struct mv_cesa_req base; directly under struct > > mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req, and move mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req fields in > > mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req. > > > Well, I think that I might keep the changes related to mv_cesa_tdma_req > in this commit (+ put struct mv_cesa_req base; direct under struct > mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req) and move the changes related to > mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req into another commit. What do you think ? After re-reading the code, I'm not sure the last part (moving mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req fields into mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req) is a good idea anymore. So let's just kill the union, and move mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req and mv_cesa_req base in mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req (you'll also have to remove the base field from the mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req struct). -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- 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
