From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tadeusz Struk Subject: Re: net: Remove iocb argument from sendmsg and recvmsg Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:09:27 -0700 Message-ID: <550068B7.8080403@intel.com> References: <54FFAA5B.3080608@intel.com> <20150311.000248.417529352060472113.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ying.xue@windriver.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, hch@lst.de, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150311.000248.417529352060472113.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On 03/10/2015 09:02 PM, David Miller wrote: > > Because of the way you quoted the patch, it looked like a list posting > looping back to the list again, because of the "List-ID: " email header. > > Therefore your posting was blocked and you'll have to resend your posting > in a way such that this doesn't happen. > Oops, sorry, here it is. Hi, After couple of attempts to implement an user space interface to crypto HW that would meet our performance requirements, and after discussion with Herbert, we have come to conclusion that using AF_ALG sockets and AIO interface is the way to go. Unfortunately it looks like AIO operations will no longer be supported on sockets because of the commit 1b784140474e4fc94281a49e96c67d29df0efbde. My question is why do we want to abandon AIO support in the socket layer? Is it not worth keeping it for scenarios like this? Do we have any alternative? Here is the mentioned patch. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5971491/ Regards, Tadeusz