Re: [CRYPTO]: Only reschedule if !in_atomic()

[Herbert Xu]

On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:20:26PM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> 
> a) remove the scheudling point and see if anyone complains
> b) if so, add a flag

OK.  I think we should go with the flag though since it could
also be used for memory allocation.

I've just added some code which allocates a scratch space for
unaligned input to the VIA Padlock (IPv4 ESP traffic is normally
unaligned due to the 20-byte IP header).  It could use this flag
to determine whether it should do GFP_KERNEL or GFP_ATOMIC.

Actually, has anyone considered using a 4-byte IP option padding?
It's legal per RFC-791 but it'd be interesting to know how well
it works in the field.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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/