On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:51:42AM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:38:40PM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/crypto/algif_hash.c b/crypto/algif_hash.c
> >> index 5e92bd2..3b3c154 100644
> >> --- a/crypto/algif_hash.c
> >> +++ b/crypto/algif_hash.c
> >> @@ -39,6 +39,20 @@ struct algif_hash_tfm {
> >> bool has_key;
> >> };
> >>
> >> +/* Previous versions of crypto_* ops used to return -EBUSY
> >> + * rather than -EAGAIN to indicate being tied up. The in
> >> + * kernel API changed but we don't want to break the user
> >> + * space API. As only the hash user interface exposed this
> >> + * error ever to the user, do the translation here.
> >> + */
> >> +static inline int crypto_user_err(int err)
> >> +{
> >> + if (err == -EAGAIN)
> >> + return -EBUSY;
> >> +
> >> + return err;
> >
> > I don't see the need to carry along this baggage. Does anyone
> > in user-space actually rely on EBUSY?
>
>
> I am not aware of anyone who does. I was just trying to avoid
> changing the user ABI.
>
> Shall I roll a new revision without this patch?
Yes please. I'd rather not carry this around for eternity unless
it was actually required.
Thanks,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <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-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
