On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 04:20:29PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 12:49:26PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> > I must be getting lost in terminology, and it feels to me that what is
> > discussed here is most likely of no interest to a lot of potential
> > users, especially ones that do compression/decompression. In majority of
> > cases they want to simply compress or decompress data, and they just
> > want to do it quickly and with minimal amount of memory consumed. They
> > do not particularly care if the task is being offloaded or executed on
> > the main CPU, either on separate thread or on the same thread, so the
> > discussion about scomp/acomp/etc is of no interest to them. From their
> > perspective they'd be totally fine with a wrapper that would do:
> >
> > int decompress(...) {
> > prepare_request()
> > send_request()
> > wait_for_request()
> > }
> >
> > and from their perspective this would be a synchronous API they are
> > happy with.
>
> You can certainly do that as a Crypto API user. And we do have
> some users who do exactly this (for example, testmgr does that
> when testing async algorithms). However, this can't be a part of
> the API itself since many of our users execute in atomic contexts.
That is what I am confused about: why can't it be a part of API? Users
that are running in atomic contexts would not be able to use it, but we
have a lot of precedents for it. See for example spi_sync() vs
spi_async(). Callers have a choice as to which one to use, based on
their needs.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
