> -----Original Message----- > From: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:21 PM > To: Pascal Van Leeuwen <pvanleeuwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Pascal van Leeuwen > <pascalvanl@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: inside-secure - Added support for the CHACHA20 skcipher > > Hello Pascal, > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 06:58:18PM +0000, Pascal Van Leeuwen wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:38:12PM +0200, Pascal van Leeuwen wrote: > > > > @@ -112,7 +123,7 @@ static void safexcel_cipher_token(struct safexcel_cipher_ctx > *ctx, u8 > > > *iv, > > > > block_sz = DES3_EDE_BLOCK_SIZE; > > > > cdesc->control_data.options |= EIP197_OPTION_2_TOKEN_IV_CMD; > > > > break; > > > > - case SAFEXCEL_AES: > > > > + default: /* case SAFEXCEL_AES */ > > > > > > Can't you keep an explicit case here? > > > > > If I do that, the compiler will complain about SAFEXCEL_CHACHA20 not > > being covered. And Chacha20 won't even make it this far, so it doesn't > > make much sense to add that to the switch. > > > > I suppose an explicit case plus an empty default would be an alternative? > > But I figured the comment should suffice to remind anyone working on that > > switch statement what it should really do. I'm fine with either approach. > > Yes, please use an explicit case and an empty default. > OK, will do > Thanks, > Antoine > > -- > Antoine Ténart, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com Thanks, Pascal van Leeuwen Silicon IP Architect, Multi-Protocol Engines @ Verimatrix www.insidesecure.com
