On 05/01/2015 09:04 AM, David Howells wrote:
>> +config CRYPTO_PKE
> I would prefer CRYPTO_PKEY and pkey rather than pke generally and algo rather
> than alg where possible - this will have more consistency with what we have
> now.
>
> I understand, however, that in core crypto code, 'alg' is used.
I'm fine with pkey. Herbert do you have preference with regards 'algo' vs 'alg'?
>> #define CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_AHASH 0x0000000a
>> > +#define CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_PKE 0x0000000b
>> > #define CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_RNG 0x0000000c
> Will filling a hole cause a problem with something that got obsoleted?
I hope not. I checked as far back as 2.6.18 and I don't see any clash.
Herbert, what do you think?
>
>> +struct pke_request {
>> > + struct crypto_async_request base;
>> > + const struct public_key *pk;
>> > + const struct public_key_signature *pks;
>> > +};
> I recommend:
>
> pk -> key or pkey
> pks -> sig or signature
no problem
>
>> + u8 pub_mpis; /* Number of MPIs in public key */
>> > + u8 sec_mpis; /* Number of MPIs in secret key */
>> > + u8 sig_mpis; /* Number of MPIs in a signature */
> Keep member names as:
>
> u8 n_pub_mpi; /* Number of MPIs in public key */
> u8 n_sec_mpi; /* Number of MPIs in secret key */
> u8 n_sig_mpi; /* Number of MPIs in a signature */
same here.
thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
