Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2023 07:40:25 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To:     "Guozihua (Scott)" <guozihua@huawei.com>
CC:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Lu Jialin <lujialin4@huawei.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: Fix hungtask for PADATA_RESET
Message-ID: <ZPVtyXevpj4Fiduw@gauss3.secunet.de>
References: <20230823073047.1515137-1-lujialin4@huawei.com>
 <ZOXRNntcDBuuJ2yg@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <c9b91a0c-5663-c351-3d4b-ad4ff74965f2@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c9b91a0c-5663-c351-3d4b-ad4ff74965f2@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 10:28:08AM +0800, Guozihua (Scott) wrote:
> On 2023/8/23 17:28, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 07:30:47AM +0000, Lu Jialin wrote:
> >>
> >> In order to resolve the problem, we retry at most 5 times when
> >> padata_do_parallel return -EBUSY. For more than 5 times, we replace the
> >> return err -EBUSY with -EAGAIN, which means parallel_data is changing, and
> >> the caller should call it again.
> > 
> > Steffen, should we retry this at all? Or should it just fail as it
> > did before?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> 
> It should be fine if we don't retry and just fail with -EAGAIN and let
> caller handles it. It should not break the meaning of the error code.

Just failing without a retry should be ok.