Hi Stephan, Yes, I was initially thinking of to put it as FIPS but looked at the existing "crypto/Kconfig" for other algorithms and found it to be using DFIPS. So kept this also the same :) I need some clarification to address your comment "Shouldn't there be a priority here?" What I know regarding priority value for an algorithm is higher the priority value it will be get selected for execution. For example, let's say for software implementation of the algorithm if priority value is specified as 100 and hardware driver implementation of the same algorithm uses the priority value of 300 then hardware algo is what selected for execution. I just had a look at priority value specified for other hash algorithm's and none of the software implementation specify any value, So it will be 0. I think it's okay to not to specify any priority value for software implementation, as hardware implementation can use non zero value if it needs higher priority. What's your opinion ? Regards, Raveendra On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Stephan Mueller <smueller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 16. Juni 2016, 14:44:57 schrieb Raveendra Padasalagi: > > Hi Raveendra, > >> > Typo DFIPS? >> >> It's not typo, DFIPS mean here Draft FIPS 202. >> Do you want me to put it in another way ? > > I have never seen DFIPS. Besides, most FIPS standards are drafts (including of > FIPS 140-2 :-) ), because it would require a signature from some ministry big- > wig in the US govt to "release" it. Hence, I expect that it would retain its > draft state for a long time :-) > > But if DFIPS is what you think is right, leave it :-) > > Ciao > Stephan -- 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
