2002-12-08 09:23:40

by Adam J. Richter

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Patch(2.5.50): Simplify crypto memory allocation

The following patch deletes the unused
crypto_tfm.crt_work_block field and combines the remaining
two kmallocs done by crypto_alloc_tfm into one, a net
deletion of 25 lines.

I've only verified that the kernel and the crpypto modules
still build. I don't currently use this code, although I'm
considering making a version of loop.c which would, which is why I
noticed this.

Anyhow, if this patch turns out to work and looks OK, then
please integrate, queue it for Linus, etc., or let me know if you
would prefer that you or I follow some other course of action.

--
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, California 95035
+1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
"Free Software For The Rest Of Us."


Attachments:
(No filename) (835.00 B)
crypt.diff (1.71 kB)
Download all attachments

2002-12-08 10:47:50

by James Morris

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: Patch(2.5.50): Simplify crypto memory allocation

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Adam J. Richter wrote:

> The following patch deletes the unused
> crypto_tfm.crt_work_block field and combines the remaining
> two kmallocs done by crypto_alloc_tfm into one, a net
> deletion of 25 lines.
>
> I've only verified that the kernel and the crpypto modules
> still build. I don't currently use this code, although I'm
> considering making a version of loop.c which would, which is why I
> noticed this.
>
> Anyhow, if this patch turns out to work and looks OK, then
> please integrate, queue it for Linus, etc., or let me know if you
> would prefer that you or I follow some other course of action.
>

Looks good and tests ok. Thanks.

(The work_block field and associated management code should have
disappeared long ago, not sure why it was still there).


- James
--
James Morris
<[email protected]>


2002-12-08 22:27:22

by David Miller

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: Patch(2.5.50): Simplify crypto memory allocation

From: James Morris <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:55:15 +1100 (EST)

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Adam J. Richter wrote:

> Anyhow, if this patch turns out to work and looks OK, then
> please integrate, queue it for Linus, etc., or let me know if you
> would prefer that you or I follow some other course of action.

Looks good and tests ok. Thanks.

I'll apply this, thanks Adam.

(The work_block field and associated management code should have
disappeared long ago, not sure why it was still there).

We just didn't do this part when the conversion was made :-)