On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 09:59:57AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/bcm/spu.c b/drivers/crypto/bcm/spu.c > > [] > > > @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ u32 spum_assoc_resp_len(enum spu_cipher_mode cipher_mode, > > > * spu_aead_ivlen() - Calculate the length of the AEAD IV to be included > > > * in a SPU request after the AAD and before the payload. > > > * @cipher_mode: cipher mode > > > - * @iv_ctr_len: initialization vector length in bytes > > > + * @iv_len: initialization vector length in bytes > > > * > > > * In Linux ~4.2 and later, the assoc_data sg includes the IV. So no need > > > * to include the IV as a separate field in the SPU request msg. > > > @@ -917,7 +917,7 @@ u16 spum_cipher_req_init(u8 *spu_hdr, struct spu_cipher_parms *cipher_parms) > > > * setkey() time in spu_cipher_req_init(). > > > * @spu_hdr: Start of the request message header (MH field) > > > * @spu_req_hdr_len: Length in bytes of the SPU request header > > > - * @isInbound: 0 encrypt, 1 decrypt > > > + * @is_inbound: 0 encrypt, 1 decrypt > > > > odd alignments > > Sorry to have missed these. > > > etc... > > Are there a lot of other such problems? I did look through the whole > patch several times by hand, but perhaps it is just too big to see > everything. Probably the comments for spum_assoc_resp_len() could be tweaked. I had written an email about this one that Joe mentioned and spum_assoc_resp_len() but then I decided that it wasn't enough to worry about so I deleted the email instead of sending it. regards, dan carpenter
