On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:47 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Of course, the real problem is that even after multiple revisions of this > patchset, there's still no actual conversions of the existing crypto API > algorithms over to use the new implementations. "Zinc" is still completely > separate from the existing crypto API. No this is not, "the real problem [...] after multiple revisions" because I've offered to do this and stated pretty clearly my intent to do so. But, as I've mentioned before, I'd really prefer to land this series through net-next, and then after we can turn our attention to integrating this into the existing crypto API. This series is already big enough and I would really prefer not to further complicate it. So, what you want is going to happen. There isn't some kind of fundamental problem here. This is more of a discussion on scheduling/trees/mergecycles than anything else.