On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:50:58AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:

How so? The reason you changed it to sg_init_table() + sg_set_buf() is
exactly because sg_init_one() didn't properly init the entry (as they
name promised).

For one of the cases yes but the other one repeatedly calls
sg_init_one on the same sg entry while we really only need
to initialise it once and call sg_set_buf afterwards.

Normally this is irrelevant but the loops in question are
trying to estimate the speed of the algorithms so it's good
to exclude as much noise from them as possible.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} [off-list ref]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt