From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: enable padlock on x86_64 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:53:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20090314115307.GA28235@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> References: <49B83002.9040705@tobiasvolk.de> <1237029843-28076-1-git-send-email-sebastian@breakpoint.cc> <20090314114732.GB3805@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, mail@tobiasvolk.de To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([85.10.199.196]:47543 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752984AbZCNLxK (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:53:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090314114732.GB3805@elte.hu> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Ingo Molnar | 2009-03-14 12:47:32 [+0100]: >thanks, looks good. We can apply #1 to -tip just fine - but a >drivers/crypto/ change should go via the crypto tree. Can the >crypto tree apply #2 without having #1 right away? [i.e. will it >still build and boot fine - even though the padlock >functionality might not be fully present on 32-bit? ] Yep, it is fine. #1 in, #2 not will not result in any difference to what we have now. #2 in, #1 not will result in "padlock not detected" while loading the module and -ENODEV. >Then in 2.6.30 once both the x86 tree and the crypto tree are >merged we'll have both changes combined. > >Does that sound good? I'm fine with this, but last word is Herbert's :) > Ingo Sebastian