From: Kim Phillips Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] crypto: talitos - fix GFP flag usage Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:27:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20080717102746.33381e30.kim.phillips@freescale.com> References: <20080716182215.36c1bd11.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <20080717121758.GA25267@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Herbert Xu , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev To: Kumar Gala Return-path: Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net ([192.88.165.102]:61275 "EHLO de01egw01.freescale.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754793AbYGQP2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:28:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:26:14 -0500 Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:33:45PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > >> > >> On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Kim Phillips wrote: > >> > >>> use GFP_ATOMIC when necessary; use atomic_t when allocating > >>> submit_count. > >> > >> why? > > > > You mean why are atomics required? Yes that is a good question. > > Yep. the commit message isn't explaining why, just what :) In honouring requests that don't have the CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_SLEEP set, afaict, it's the standard non-wait variant GFP that drivers use (see the ixp4xx driver for e.g.). Kim