Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230428110058.1516119-1-letrhee@nsr.re.kr> <20230428110058.1516119-2-letrhee@nsr.re.kr>
 <20230428232938.GB3150@sol.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20230428232938.GB3150@sol.localdomain>
From:   Letrhee <letrhee@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 29 Apr 2023 11:20:54 +0900
Message-ID: <CAFiNs_rFYp9L_AB1x+dkRg+oUF1uGKxDm5qQqAaoK1AcS=45AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] crypto: LEA block cipher implementation
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dongsoo Lee <letrhee@nsr.re.kr>, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <abc@test.nsr.re.kr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Thank you for taking the time to review the implementation. I
appreciate your feedback and will respond to other reviews soon.

As you mentioned, I agree that using loop unrolling in generic C code
can be unnecessary and make it difficult to verify against the
original paper. Additionally, I acknowledge that the submitted code
may lack sufficient comments.

I'll follow your suggestion and re-implement the code.

Thank you again for your review.