Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-4574-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 14:18:41 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] crypto: acomp - Add interface to set parameters
Message-ID: <20240531051841.GD8400@google.com>
References: <cover.1716202860.git.herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <ZllbHYL8FYlrCRC_@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <20240531051232.GC8400@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240531051232.GC8400@google.com>

On (24/05/31 14:12), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (24/05/31 13:07), Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:04:43PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > This patch series adds an interface to set compression algorithm
> > > parameters.  The third patch is only an example.  Each algorithm
> > > could come up with its own distinct set of parameters and format
> > > if necessary.
> > > 
> > > Herbert Xu (3):
> > >   crypto: scomp - Add setparam interface
> > >   crypto: acomp - Add setparam interface
> > >   crypto: acomp - Add comp_params helpers
> > > 
> > >  crypto/acompress.c                  |  70 +++++++++++++++++--
> > >  crypto/compress.h                   |   9 ++-
> > >  crypto/scompress.c                  | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >  include/crypto/acompress.h          |  41 ++++++++++-
> > >  include/crypto/internal/acompress.h |   3 +
> > >  include/crypto/internal/scompress.h |  37 ++++++++++
> > >  6 files changed, 252 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 2.39.2
> > 
> > So does this satsify your needs Sergey? I'm not going to apply this
> > if you won't be using it.
> 
> Oh, I didn't see this series (not subscribed to linux-crypto).
> Let me take a look.

Ah, wonderful. The series landed in the SPAM folder:

	"Why is this message in spam? It is similar to messages that were
	identified as spam in the past."

Whatever that means. Recovered, thanks for pinging me on this.