From: Kim Phillips Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] crypto: talitos: Fix off-by-one and use all hardware slots Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:35:31 -0600 Message-ID: <20150303183531.312a8d332b1b776764a15a47@freescale.com> References: <1425388897-5434-1-git-send-email-mort@bork.org> <1425388897-5434-4-git-send-email-mort@bork.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Scott Wood , Kumar Gala , , , Horia =?UTF-8?Q?Geant=C4=83?= To: Martin Hicks Return-path: Received: from mail-bn1on0147.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.56.110.147]:48843 "EHLO na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754161AbbCDAku (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 19:40:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1425388897-5434-4-git-send-email-mort@bork.org> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 08:21:35 -0500 Martin Hicks wrote: > The submission count was off by one. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Hicks > --- sadly, this directly contradicts: commit 4b24ea971a93f5d0bec34bf7bfd0939f70cfaae6 Author: Vishnu Suresh Date: Mon Oct 20 21:06:18 2008 +0800 crypto: talitos - Preempt overflow interrupts off-by-one fix My guess is your request submission pattern differs from that of Vishnu's (probably IPSec and/or tcrypt), or later h/w versions have gotten better about dealing with channel near-overflow conditions. Either way, I'd prefer we not do this: it might break others, and I'm guessing doesn't improve performance _that_ much? If it does, we could risk it and restrict it to SEC versions 3.3 and above maybe? Not sure what to do here exactly, barring digging up and old 2.x SEC and testing. Kim p.s. I checked, Vishnu isn't with Freescale anymore, so I can't cc him.