Re: [PATCH] cryptoapi: Fix sleeping

[Matt Mackall]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 03:08:12AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
> > It's basically trying to be friendly. Since we can't really detect
> > when it's safe to do such yields, we should be explicitly flag the
> > uses where its ok. Something like this:
> 
> I think this is the best approach.
> 
> >  #define CRYPTO_TFM_MODE_MASK		0x000000ff
> >  #define CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MASK		0x000fff00
> > -#define CRYPTO_TFM_RES_MASK		0xfff00000
> > +#define CRYPTO_TFM_RES_MASK		0x7ff00000
> > +#define CRYPTO_TFM_API_MASK		0x80000000
> 
> This doesn't leave much room for API flags -- the CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MASK 
> could be made smaller.

Leaves no room actually. I figured this would be easy to move around
after the fact.

On the subject of flags, what's the best way for an algorithm init
function to get at the tfm structures (and thereby the flags) given a
ctxt? Pointer math on a ctxt?

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/