On 21 May 2017 at 12:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 9:11 AM, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan > <prasannatsmkumar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof >> >> On 21 May 2017 at 11:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 8:09 AM, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan >>> <prasannatsmkumar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> As cra_ctxsize is set but the allocated space is not used, set it 0. >>> >>> Why do you think it is not used? Did you test our change on hardware? >> >> Had a look at the crypto rng code. I think the additional size is used >> to store driver private data. But this driver does not store any >> private data in the crypto_tfm structure so I think the 'cra_ctxsize' >> can be safely set to 0. > > Then from where does crypto_tfm_ctx() get its memory? Ah, yes. Thanks for pointing out. I overlooked this. My patch is completely wrong. >> I do not have access to the hardware, did not test the change. Sorry I >> forgot to mention that. > > That is quite important... By default everything must be tested so if > you are skipping this step then please mark the patch respectively so > others will provide testing. Sure. Will keep that in mind. Instead of marking it as a [PATCH] should I use something else for this? Will it make things easier? Thanks, PrasannaKumar
