[PATCH 2/5] Support Intel SHA512

[Jan Beulich]

On 18.07.2023 09:20, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
>> As to implying baseline functionality, using AVX (rather than AVX2) makes
>> little sense, so even if the feature check remained (note that various
>> other extensions, including e.g. AVX-VNNI-INT<n>, don't have such a
>> secondary requirement), I'd still be fairly insistent on having the
>> base feature named here (and for SM4) be AVX2 (to be in line with other
>> similar baseline selections).
> 
> I confirmed that AVX in doc here means a state of the whole AVX ISA,
> which should include AVX and AVX2. 
> 
> I will change the imply of SHA512 and SM4 to AVX2 since it looks much more
> reasonable.

Thanks.

> Should we also change the imply of SM3 here?

AVX looks sufficient there, so I'd say only if you have a good justification.

Jan