On Thursday, December 15, 2016 8:45 AM, Gonglei (Arei) Wrote: < > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_core.c < > b/drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_core.c < > > new file mode 100644 < > > index 0000000..c0854a1 < > > --- /dev/null < > > +++ b/drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_core.c < > > @@ -0,0 +1,474 @@ < > [..] < > > + < > > +static void virtcrypto_dataq_callback(struct virtqueue *vq) < > > +{ < > > + struct virtio_crypto *vcrypto = vq->vdev->priv; < > > + struct virtio_crypto_request *vc_req; < > > + unsigned long flags; < > > + unsigned int len; < > > + struct ablkcipher_request *ablk_req; < > > + int error; < > > + < > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&vcrypto->lock, flags); < > < > Would it make sense to use a per virtqueue lock < > like in virtio_blk for example instead of locking on the whole < > device? OK, it seems you use only one dataqueue, so it < > may not be that relevant. < > < Currently yes, both the backend device (cryptodev-backend-builtin) < and the frontend driver use one dataqueue. < I think it makes sense to use per virtqueue lock here though it only uses one queue so far, but in the spec we already have multi queues support. < Regards, < -Gonglei -- 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