From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Crypto queue handling Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:10:19 +0800 Message-ID: <20141112041019.GA24334@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <201405261758.19425.marex@denx.de> <20140530093030.GC12760@gondor.apana.org.au> <20140530134135.GA14778@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Hsieh, Che-Min" , Marek Vasut , "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann , Pantelis Antoniou To: Nicolae Rosia Return-path: Received: from helcar.apana.org.au ([209.40.204.226]:54746 "EHLO helcar.apana.org.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932255AbaKLEKf (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 23:10:35 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 08:04:03PM +0200, Nicolae Rosia wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Herbert Xu > wrote: > > > [...] > > This is because the user is supposed to back off once they get > > EBUSY, until they're notified once the backlog entry is popped > > off (but not processed, it must be resubmitted). > > [...] > > > > I'm trying to understand the backlog mechanism and after reading the source > of crypto_enqueue_request and Stephan Mueller's example [1], my > understanding is that the user does not have to queue again the backlogged > request because when it returned -EBUSY it was added to the > crypto_queue->list. Am I missing something? You're right, the backlogged request does not need to be resubmitted. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt