[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141218141934.GA612@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:19:34 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Jumbo 1 release
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 07:44:01PM +0530, Sayantan Datta wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:26 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I say go for it! Perhaps consider cherry-picking first or both of
> > Sayantan's patches that are in the descrypt-test-amd branch though (as
> > mentioned in the descrypt issue now)
>
> I was planning to create two separate paths(compile-time) for those two
> patches but it would require some testing regarding which device should
> follow which path. Since we don't have time, patch1 have 0 goto statements,
> hence more reliable but performance is somewhat poor.
Just how poor is it? When running one or several --fork'ed processes?
> If you agree, I'll
> push a polished version of patch1 to bleeding-jumbo.
I think we should revisit this for -jumbo-2. Not now.
Thanks!
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
