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?
Thanks,
Gilad
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker
"If you take a class in large-scale robotics, can you end up in a
situation where the homework eats your dog?"
-- Jean-Baptiste Queru
