Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:01:34 -0700 | From | "Dan Williams" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.22-rc4-mm1 |
| |
On 6/7/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:01:08 +1000 Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:54:50AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > > > > > /me points at Herbert > > > Andrew would not add options between the "menuconfig CRYPTO" and > > > the "if CRYPTO" line... :) > > > > Actually this patch is not even in my tree :) > > uh, OK, sorry. > > > > Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/crypto/Kconfig > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6.22-rc4.orig/crypto/Kconfig > > > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc4/crypto/Kconfig > > > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ menuconfig CRYPTO > > > help > > > This option provides the core Cryptographic API. > > > > > > +if CRYPTO > > > + > > > # > > > # Generic algorithms support > > > # > > > @@ -18,8 +20,6 @@ config XOR_BLOCKS > > > # > > > source "crypto/async_tx/Kconfig" > > > > Andrew, do you want me to pick the async_tx stuff up instead? > > > It would be very helpful to have a clear merge path for dmaengine changes and the async offload api. Neil has been extremely helpful reviewing the raid specific changes, and I received his "Acked-by" for the changes to MD[1]. However I have thus far been unable to attract someone to 'ack/nak' the async_tx api and the changes to drivers/dma/ [2]. Jeff commented on an early revision...
I have recently gravitated to Herbert and the crypto directory since async_tx and crypto have some structural similarities [3].
> I wouldn't recommend it. It's an ongoing source of bustage frankly, has a > habit of getting unpleasantly tangled with git-ioat.patch and afaik is > still awaiting a go-ahead from Neil. >
Sorry, the crypto/Kconfig bustage was a goof on my part as I moved the async_tx files from drivers/dma/, to the top-level directory, and finally to crypto/. Hopefully these recent build breakages I have caused in -mm have not put the series in too negative a light...
I was hoping the git-ioat.patch situation would be solved by me rebasing my series on a version of mainline with Chris' changes merged, but his attempts over the past two merge windows were ignored. Should my series wait outside of -mm until git-ioat.patch makes forward progress?
Overall, I feel that async_tx is perhaps justifiably receiving the silent treatment because offload engines are not a mainstream occurrence. Currently only people with an Xscale IOP or a PPC 440spe [4] will notice that mainline lacks support for all the features of their platform. I see async_tx as a nod to the embedded space where offload engines act to make up for the absence of multi-Ghz CPUs with streaming SIMD instructions.
Herbert's offer is greatly appreciated as it will give guidance to the parts of the series outside of Neil's purview.
Regards, Dan
[1]: The ack from Neil was in an offlist message for the MD specific portion of the series [2]: I asked DaveM and netdev to take a look at the two patches in the series that change drivers/dma/ and net/core/dev.c since that was the original merge path for I/OAT and dmaengine [3]: async_tx is similar to crypto in that they both provide a library of memory transforms that can in some cases be carried out by hardware. [4]: async_tx has attracted at least one other developer that I know about to write a driver for their engines: http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=117400143317440&w=2 - 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/
| |