Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:21:07 +0100
From:   Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>
To:     Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@nxp.com>
Cc:     "alexandre.torgue@st.com" <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "herbert@gondor.apana.org.au" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com" <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        "mripard@kernel.org" <mripard@kernel.org>,
        "wens@csie.org" <wens@csie.org>,
        Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@nxp.com>,
        Aymen Sghaier <aymen.sghaier@nxp.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com" 
        <linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        "linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com" <linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 06/10] crypto: engine: introduce ct
Message-ID: <20200116132107.GB26487@Red>
References: <20200114135936.32422-1-clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>
 <20200114135936.32422-7-clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>
 <VI1PR04MB44455F7F7830159B6ED336648C360@VI1PR04MB4445.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR04MB44455F7F7830159B6ED336648C360@VI1PR04MB4445.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:34:19AM +0000, Iuliana Prodan wrote:
> On 1/14/2020 4:00 PM, Corentin Labbe wrote:
> > We will store the number of request in a batch in engine->ct.
> > This patch adds all loop to unprepare all requests of a batch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   crypto/crypto_engine.c  | 30 ++++++++++++++++++------------
> >   include/crypto/engine.h |  2 ++
> >   2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/crypto/crypto_engine.c b/crypto/crypto_engine.c
> > index b72873550587..591dea5ddeec 100644
> > --- a/crypto/crypto_engine.c
> > +++ b/crypto/crypto_engine.c
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ static void crypto_finalize_request(struct crypto_engine *engine,
> >   	bool finalize_cur_req = false;
> >   	int ret;
> >   	struct crypto_engine_ctx *enginectx;
> > +	int i = 0;
> >   
> >   	spin_lock_irqsave(&engine->queue_lock, flags);
> >   	if (engine->cur_reqs[0].req == req)
> You're checking here just the first request, but do the completion for 
> all? Why? Shouldn't we check for each request if it was done by hw or not?

The first request is a sort of key for the whole batch.
> 
> I've also seen that the do_one_request is called only on the first 
> request, from the batch.

Since the request are linked, this is not a problem.
But I miss this explanaition in the code.

> 
> In your driver you do the prepare/unprepare for the whole batch at once, 
> but not all drivers, who uses crypto-engine, are doing this (see virtio, 
> amlogic, stm32). And I don't know if they can...

prepare is optionnal, and unprepare is optional even if prepare is done.
Furthermore, doing prepare/unprepare is optional per request.
I have tested this serie on sun8i-ss and amlogic which dont use prepare/unprepare.