Hi Julian, On 12/23/21 6:35 AM, Julian Calaby wrote:
Hi Tianjia, On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:25 PM Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:crypto_sha256_init() and sha256_base_init() are the same repeated implementations, remove the crypto_sha256_init() in generic implementation, sha224 is the same process. Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- crypto/sha256_generic.c | 16 ++-------------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/crypto/sha256_generic.c b/crypto/sha256_generic.c index 3b377197236e..bf147b01e313 100644 --- a/crypto/sha256_generic.c +++ b/crypto/sha256_generic.c @@ -72,7 +60,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(crypto_sha256_finup); static struct shash_alg sha256_algs[2] = { { .digestsize = SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE, - .init = crypto_sha256_init, + .init = sha256_base_init, .update = crypto_sha256_update, .final = crypto_sha256_final, .finup = crypto_sha256_finup, @@ -86,7 +74,7 @@ static struct shash_alg sha256_algs[2] = { { } }, { .digestsize = SHA224_DIGEST_SIZE, - .init = crypto_sha224_init, + .init = sha224_base_init, .update = crypto_sha256_update, .final = crypto_sha256_final, .finup = crypto_sha256_finup,Aren't these two functions defined as static inline functions? It appears that these crypto_ wrappers were added so there's "actual" referenceable functions for these structs. Did this actually compile? Thanks,
Judging from the compilation results, there is really no difference, but the modification made by this patch is still necessary, because crypto_sha256_init() wrapper and sha256_base_init() are two completely duplicate functions.
Best regards, Tianjia
