On 2022-01-10 14:46:27 -0600, Brijesh Singh wrote:

Hi Venu,

On 1/5/22 1:34 PM, Brijesh Singh wrote:

quoted

On 1/3/22 1:10 PM, Venu Busireddy wrote:

quoted

On 2021-12-15 15:22:57 -0600, Michael Roth wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:38:55PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:

quoted

But it is hard to discuss anything without patches so we can continue
the topic with concrete patches. But this unification is not
super-pressing so it can go ontop of the SNP pile.

Yah, it's all theoretical at this point. Didn't mean to derail things
though. I mainly brought it up to suggest that Venu's original
approach of
returning the encryption bit via a pointer argument might make
it easier to
expand it for other purposes in the future, and that naming it for that
future purpose might encourage future developers to focus their efforts
there instead of potentially re-introducing duplicate code.

But either way it's simple enough to rework things when we actually
cross that bridge. So totally fine with saving all of this as a future
follow-up, or picking up either of Venu's patches for now if you'd still
prefer.

So, what is the consensus? Do you want me to submit a patch after the
SNP changes go upstream? Or, do you want to roll in one of the patches
that I posted earlier?

Will incorporate your changes in v9. And will see what others say about it.

Now that I am incorporating the feedback in my wip branch, at this time I am
dropping your cleanup mainly because some of recommendation may require more
rework down the line; you can submit your recommendation as cleanup after
the patches are in. I hope this is okay with you.

Can't we do that rework (if any) as and when it is needed? I am worried
that we will never get this in!

Venu