On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Samuel Neves wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > >> lib/zinc/Makefile | 4 + > >> lib/zinc/chacha20/chacha20-x86_64-glue.h | 102 + > >> lib/zinc/chacha20/chacha20-x86_64.S | 2632 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Just a stupid question. What's the rationale of putting that into lib/zinc > > instead of having it in arch/x86/crypto? > > > > This is covered on the 02/17 commit message, whose relevant paragraph follows: Well, being only cc'ed on only half of the patches does not really help. > > It also organizes the implementations in a simple, straight-forward, > > and direct manner, making it enjoyable and intuitive to work on. > > Rather than moving optimized assembly implementations into arch/, it > > keeps them all together in lib/zinc/, making it simple and obvious to > > compare and contrast what's happening. This is, notably, exactly what > > the lib/raid6/ tree does, and that seems to work out rather well. It's > > also the pattern of most successful crypto libraries. The architecture- > > specific glue-code is made a part of each translation unit, rather than > > being in a separate one, so that generic and architecture-optimized code > > are combined at compile-time, and incompatibility branches compiled out by > > the optimizer. Fair enough.
