On 2022-01-10 14:46:27 -0600, Brijesh Singh wrote: > Hi Venu, > > On 1/5/22 1:34 PM, Brijesh Singh wrote: > > > > > > On 1/3/22 1:10 PM, Venu Busireddy wrote: > > > On 2021-12-15 15:22:57 -0600, Michael Roth wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:38:55PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But it is hard to discuss anything without patches so we can continue > > > > > the topic with concrete patches. But this unification is not > > > > > super-pressing so it can go ontop of the SNP pile. > > > > > > > > Yah, it's all theoretical at this point. Didn't mean to derail things > > > > though. I mainly brought it up to suggest that Venu's original > > > > approach of > > > > returning the encryption bit via a pointer argument might make > > > > it easier to > > > > expand it for other purposes in the future, and that naming it for that > > > > future purpose might encourage future developers to focus their efforts > > > > there instead of potentially re-introducing duplicate code. > > > > > > > > But either way it's simple enough to rework things when we actually > > > > cross that bridge. So totally fine with saving all of this as a future > > > > follow-up, or picking up either of Venu's patches for now if you'd still > > > > prefer. > > > > > > So, what is the consensus? Do you want me to submit a patch after the > > > SNP changes go upstream? Or, do you want to roll in one of the patches > > > that I posted earlier? > > > > > > > Will incorporate your changes in v9. And will see what others say about it. > > > > Now that I am incorporating the feedback in my wip branch, at this time I am > dropping your cleanup mainly because some of recommendation may require more > rework down the line; you can submit your recommendation as cleanup after > the patches are in. I hope this is okay with you. Can't we do that rework (if any) as and when it is needed? I am worried that we will never get this in! Venu
