| To: | James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Crypto tests via tcrypt.o modules failes |
| From: | Zilvinas Valinskas <zilvinas@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:21:26 +0300 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Xine.LNX.4.44.0409171056470.7996-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com> |
| Organization: | Gemtek Baltic |
| References: | <Xine.LNX.4.44.0409171056470.7996-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com> |
| Reply-to: | zilvinas@xxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 17:58, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Zilvinas Valinskas wrote: > > > I would say Xscale IXP425 has a rather interesting 32, 16 bits > > read/write results if address is not aligned properly. In the same > > directory - http://www.gemtek.lt/~zilvinas/crypto/ i've put *.pdf > > describing what exactly is happening. > > I've had a report that all is well on an Xscale PXA (SoC) system, with a > 2.6.7-rc2 kernel. Are there any significant differences between that and > what you have? 2.4.27 and 2.6.7-rc2 I think quite different - can you tell me which parts to check for differencies ? Here I use 2.4.27 + IPsec patch (from Herbert Xu) + Xscale bits (arch/arm - directory is only patched). I can do a full diff between vanilla 2.4.27 and what I've got if you like and put on web. > > - James |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: The ultimate TOE design, Alan Cox |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch 1/5 2.4] e1000 - remove support for advanced TCO features, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Crypto tests via tcrypt.o modules failes, James Morris |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Crypto tests via tcrypt.o modules failes, James Morris |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |