| To: | James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Replace scatterlist with crypto_frag |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 4 Jun 2005 14:51:19 +1000 |
| Cc: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Xine.LNX.4.44.0506040039190.11329-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com> |
| References: | <20050604004201.GB20471@gondor.apana.org.au> <Xine.LNX.4.44.0506040039190.11329-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.9i |
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 12:39:41AM -0400, James Morris wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > So this is really a sort of bio_vec for crypto structures. The objective > > here is to make the structure as compact as possible to allow users to > > allocate it on the stack most of the time. > > Seems like a good idea to me. Thanks James. What do you think about eating up 32 bytes on the stack in esp_input/esp_output? In fact, how did we come up with the number of four frags? Why wouldn't say two frags do for most users or perhaps even one? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] Replace scatterlist with crypto_frag, James Morris |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Automated linux kernel testing results, Jonathan Day |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Replace scatterlist with crypto_frag, James Morris |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Replace scatterlist with crypto_frag, James Morris |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |