![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Jan 18, 2005, at 19:18, Dan Hollis wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Venkat Manakkal wrote: >> As for cryptoloop, I'm sorry, I cannot say the same. The password >> hashing >> system being changed in the past year, poor stability and machine >> lockups are >> what I have noticed, besides there is nothing like the readme here: > > cryptoloop is also unusably slow, even on my x86_64 machines... > > at the very least someone should merge in the assembler loop-aes > routines. > all other architectural arguments/whining aside, is there any good > reason > not to do this? As far as I am aware, from monitoring the various threads of this discussion for a few years, the only reason is that nobody has compiled and submitted a set of small, discreet, and obvious patches. I suspect if someone were to do that, it would be applied without much fuss or whining. The primary complaints against loop-AES WRT merging it (or any subset) with the mainstream kernel was that it is a single bigdiff, with no real subdivision. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$ L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r !y?(-) ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||