From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] crypto: talitos - fix GFP flag usage Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:51:43 -0500 Message-ID: <8819CEAD-C9D4-4645-A272-026AE2B39D7B@kernel.crashing.org> References: <20080716182215.36c1bd11.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <20080717121758.GA25267@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080717102746.33381e30.kim.phillips@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Herbert Xu , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev To: Kim Phillips Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:53065 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754498AbYGQPwD (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:52:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080717102746.33381e30.kim.phillips@freescale.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Kim Phillips wrote: > 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.). so GFP_ATOMIC and atomic_t aren't related. I can understand the need for GFP_ATOMIC, but I don't get why something needs to be declared atomic_t. - k