Re: glxsb(4) and other opencrypto(9) engines in use by cgd(4) and fast_ipsec(4) ?
"Brian A. Seklecki" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.general,gmane.os.netbsd.devel.crypto |
|---|---|
| Organization | Collaborative Fusion, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <1221762495.15646.224.camel@soundwave.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com> |
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 22:38 -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > You're correct that the cgd driver doesn't use crypto(9). It could -- > if it did so synchronously (waiting on every request) the > modifications would be quite small. We might be interested in sponsoring that. We're not a crypto-NAS company, though, we're an ASP. Might be a hard sell, but if someone wants to ballpark the development costs.... > However, someone ought to replace the dreadful iovec-walking code used > by crypto(9) with the considerably better code in cgd -- or even > better yet, something that submits multiple requests but doesn't copy > at all -- while they're at it, at least so I says. Alright (alright). Carry on. -- Brian A. Seklecki <[email protected]> Collaborative Fusion, Inc. IMPORTANT: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient (or the individual responsible for the delivery of this message to an intended recipient), please be advised that any re-use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.