From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] crypto: aead - allow to allocate AEAD requests on the stack Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 07:00:06 +0800 Message-ID: <20180503230006.oq6vycplwsomfprw@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20180502095725.31935-1-antoine.tenart@bootlin.com> <20180502095725.31935-2-antoine.tenart@bootlin.com> <02ad9eb93c494314a85db69886cf787a@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20180503122330.GB3324@kwain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Laight , "davem@davemloft.net" , "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com" , "maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com" , "gregory.clement@bootlin.com" , "miquel.raynal@bootlin.com" , "nadavh@marvell.com" , "oferh@marvell.com" , "igall@marvell.com" To: 'Antoine Tenart' Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180503122330.GB3324@kwain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:23:30PM +0200, 'Antoine Tenart' wrote: > > I was expecting this question :) The thing is this define looks *a lot* > like the ones defined in other places in the crypto framework, such as > SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK and AHASH_REQUEST_ON_STACK. Those haven't been > tackled down so far by the whole VLA removal so the idea was that the > same solution will apply to the 3 of them (and then I'm not really > adding a new one). Those constructs only exist for reasons of backwards compatibility. There is no such reason for AEAD. So why do you need this? Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt