On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 03:07:01PM -0800, Bob Wolff wrote:
Peter, Thanks for helping lead me down the right path here.
WRT tinycrypt, the license is quite permissive. https://github.com/intel/tinycrypt
Also, I'd like your advice - I was thinking for the larger patch that I'd do it in two commits. The first would be the addition of the tinycrypt files and the second is the actual changes and additions to support ecdsa verification. I doubt that's controversial. However when I run a trial `patman` against the tinycrypt commit, I geta huge number of issues: *checkpatch.pl http://checkpatch.pl found 186 error(s), 380 warning(s), 481 checks(s)*
What's your advice on this? I would tend to think we'd want to /not/ change the source files directly for such purposes so that updates could be brought in with greater ease.
Yeah. For this kind of thing you wouldn't want to make a bunch of checkpatch changes. They sometimes pull crypto and compression libraries into the Linux kernel pretty much unmodified as well for the same reason.
Igor's proposal about pull this stuff from the Linux kernel instead seems like a good idea though.
regards, dan carpenter