Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:06:57 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MFC question Message-ID: <CAJ-VmonOJ%2BkMa8hgEBaW%2BLBopQWAvAnUoA5r8PJ03BvsEdDeZw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5696E5DF.7080202@freebsd.org> References: <5696E5DF.7080202@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
why can't you provide both in stable/10 ? -a On 13 January 2016 at 16:03, Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> wrote: > I was considering MFC'ing this commit to stable/10: > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=292782 > > It replaces the kernel implementation of SHA512 (sys/crypto/sha2/sha2.c) > with cperciva@'s version from libmd. In benchmarks it was 5-30% faster, > on x86_64 and arm/mips. > > But, in head I ended up being asked to bump __FreeBSD_version because it > removes sys/crypto/sha2.h which was apparently used by a 3rd party > driver, and replaces it with sys/crypto/sha512.h > > Does this kind of change mean it cannot be MFCd to stable/10? Or is it > ok to MFC it? > > -- > Allan Jude > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmonOJ%2BkMa8hgEBaW%2BLBopQWAvAnUoA5r8PJ03BvsEdDeZw>