Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:09:17 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Samuel Neves <sneves@dei.uc.pt>
cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        davem@davemloft.net,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@gmail.com>,
        Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 05/17] zinc: ChaCha20 x86_64 implementation
In-Reply-To: <CAEX_ruFFWsW897DuFEbz9+6av02bMwDgiA9GxV+=SBtyKG7LJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809111106420.5110@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20180911010838.8818-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180911010838.8818-6-Jason@zx2c4.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809111021250.5110@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <CAEX_ruFFWsW897DuFEbz9+6av02bMwDgiA9GxV+=SBtyKG7LJw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Samuel Neves wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >>  lib/zinc/Makefile                        |    4 +
> >>  lib/zinc/chacha20/chacha20-x86_64-glue.h |  102 +
> >>  lib/zinc/chacha20/chacha20-x86_64.S      | 2632 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Just a stupid question. What's the rationale of putting that into lib/zinc
> > instead of having it in arch/x86/crypto?
> >
> 
> This is covered on the 02/17 commit message, whose relevant paragraph follows:

Well, being only cc'ed on only half of the patches does not really help.

> > It also organizes the implementations in a simple, straight-forward,
> > and direct manner, making it enjoyable and intuitive to work on.
> > Rather than moving optimized assembly implementations into arch/, it
> > keeps them all together in lib/zinc/, making it simple and obvious to
> > compare and contrast what's happening. This is, notably, exactly what
> > the lib/raid6/ tree does, and that seems to work out rather well. It's
> > also the pattern of most successful crypto libraries. The architecture-
> > specific glue-code is made a part of each translation unit, rather than
> > being in a separate one, so that generic and architecture-optimized code
> > are combined at compile-time, and incompatibility branches compiled out by
> > the optimizer.

Fair enough.