From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com ([192.95.5.64]:44301 "EHLO frisell.zx2c4.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726269AbeKSAHG (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Nov 2018 19:07:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181105232526.173947-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20181105232526.173947-11-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20181112185816.GA8663@gmail.com> <20181116060227.hwu4igi6bp26ddpi@gondor.apana.org.au> <20181117001718.GA175522@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20181117001718.GA175522@gmail.com> From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:46:30 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/15] crypto: poly1305 - use structures for key and accumulator To: Eric Biggers Cc: Herbert Xu , Ard Biesheuvel , Linux Crypto Mailing List , linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, LKML , Paul Crowley , Greg Kaiser , Samuel Neves , Tomer Ashur Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Eric, On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 1:17 AM Eric Biggers wrote: > Do you prefer that this be merged before or after Zinc? It seems it may still > be a while before the community is satisfied with Zinc (and Wireguard which is > in the same patchset), and I don't want this blocked unnecessarily... So on my > part I'd prefer to just have this merged as-is. Personally I'd prefer this be merged after Zinc, since there's work to be done on adjusting the 20->12 in chacha20. That's not really much of a reason though. But maybe we can just sidestep the ordering concern all together: What I suspect we should do is make the initial Zinc merge _without_ those top two patches that replace the crypto api's implementations with Zinc, and defer those until after the initial merges. Those commits are already written -- so there's no chance it won't happen due to laziness or something -- and I think the general merge will go a bit more smoothly if we wait until after. (Somebody suggested we do it this way at Plumbers, and was actually a bit surprised I had already ported the crypto API stuff to Zinc.) This way, Adiantum and Zinc aren't potentially co-dependent in their initial merges and we can work on the details carefully with each other after both have landed. I figure this might make things a little bit less stressful for both of us. How would you feel about doing it that? Jason From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason@zx2c4.com (Jason A. Donenfeld) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:46:30 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH v3 10/15] crypto: poly1305 - use structures for key and accumulator In-Reply-To: <20181117001718.GA175522@gmail.com> References: <20181105232526.173947-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20181105232526.173947-11-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20181112185816.GA8663@gmail.com> <20181116060227.hwu4igi6bp26ddpi@gondor.apana.org.au> <20181117001718.GA175522@gmail.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Eric, On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 1:17 AM Eric Biggers wrote: > Do you prefer that this be merged before or after Zinc? It seems it may still > be a while before the community is satisfied with Zinc (and Wireguard which is > in the same patchset), and I don't want this blocked unnecessarily... So on my > part I'd prefer to just have this merged as-is. Personally I'd prefer this be merged after Zinc, since there's work to be done on adjusting the 20->12 in chacha20. That's not really much of a reason though. But maybe we can just sidestep the ordering concern all together: What I suspect we should do is make the initial Zinc merge _without_ those top two patches that replace the crypto api's implementations with Zinc, and defer those until after the initial merges. Those commits are already written -- so there's no chance it won't happen due to laziness or something -- and I think the general merge will go a bit more smoothly if we wait until after. (Somebody suggested we do it this way at Plumbers, and was actually a bit surprised I had already ported the crypto API stuff to Zinc.) This way, Adiantum and Zinc aren't potentially co-dependent in their initial merges and we can work on the details carefully with each other after both have landed. I figure this might make things a little bit less stressful for both of us. How would you feel about doing it that? Jason