On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:40:02AM +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> VMX ghash was using a fallback that did not support interleaving simd
> and nosimd operations, leading to failures in the extended test suite.
>
> If I understood correctly, Eric's suggestion was to use the same
> data format that th
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:32:12AM +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote:
>
> Yes, I think that's the right fixes tag. Not quite sure how I managed to
> miss that! Herbert, I assume this will go via your tree: do you want me
> to send a v2 with the tag or are you OK to just add that in when you
> merge it?
I
Michael Ellerman writes:
> Daniel Axtens writes:
>> VMX ghash was using a fallback that did not support interleaving simd
>> and nosimd operations, leading to failures in the extended test suite.
>>
>> If I understood correctly, Eric's suggestion was to use the same
>> data format that the gener
Daniel Axtens writes:
> VMX ghash was using a fallback that did not support interleaving simd
> and nosimd operations, leading to failures in the extended test suite.
>
> If I understood correctly, Eric's suggestion was to use the same
> data format that the generic code uses, allowing us to call
On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 17:40, Daniel Axtens wrote:
>
> VMX ghash was using a fallback that did not support interleaving simd
> and nosimd operations, leading to failures in the extended test suite.
>
> If I understood correctly, Eric's suggestion was to use the same
> data format that the generic
VMX ghash was using a fallback that did not support interleaving simd
and nosimd operations, leading to failures in the extended test suite.
If I understood correctly, Eric's suggestion was to use the same
data format that the generic code uses, allowing us to call into it
with the same contexts.
