Adrian Bunk wrote:
> That is not specifically against this patch, but before we add another
> AES implementation, I'd like to find a better solution for the general
> AES selection.
That would be nice as I didn't like having to duplicate a whole Kconfig
entry which in fact means that it is triplicated now.
I'm fine with any solution here but I do believe whatever solution is
for the crypto maintainers to decide.
[snip]
>>+ depends on CRYPTO && (X86 && !X86_64)
>>+ depends on CRYPTO && X86 && !X86_64
>>...
>
>
> This doesn't make any difference.
>
> I think the former version was better readable, but that's no strong
> opinion.
This was only personal preference during development and actually you're
right, the former version is better readable.
--
Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use [email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
