From: Sami Tolvanen Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: crypto: Add NEON optimized SHA-256 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:21:20 +0000 Message-ID: <20150317152120.GA31053@google.com> References: <20150316154835.GA31336@google.com> <20150316162304.GA35408@google.com> <550843B4.8080903@openssl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" To: Andy Polyakov Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:33372 "EHLO mail-wg0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753530AbbCQPVZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:21:25 -0400 Received: by wgbcc7 with SMTP id cc7so11337691wgb.0 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <550843B4.8080903@openssl.org> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:09:40PM +0100, Andy Polyakov wrote: > I have no problems with reusing assembly modules in kernel context. Awesome, thank you for clarifying this. > I'd prefer if it can be arranged in way similar to bsaes-armv7 module, > i.e. we work together on shared copy of module that generates assembly > that can be then compiled for OpenSSL or kernel. Is it sensible? Sure, that sounds good to me. > BTW, why stop at SHA256? There is SHA512 and NEON SHA1... The kernel already has NEON SHA-1 and SHA-512, but for some reason is lacking SHA-256. I have not tested how they compare to yours though. Sami