> Else, what about ceding the processor ? Or at the very least reducing > the thread priority for a bit ? > > Shouldn't we also enforce to always have a timeout ? IE. Something like > 30s or so if nothing specified to avoid having the kernel just hard > lock... > > In general I don't like that sort of synchronous code, I'd rather return > the busy status up the chain which gives a chance to the caller to take > more appropriate measures depending on what it's doing, but that really > depends what you use that synchronous call for. I suppose if it's for > configuration type operations, it's ok... In any case, don't resend the whole series, just that one patch. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
