On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:22:48AM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > > +static inline int crypto_wait_req(int err, struct crypto_wait *wait) > +{ > + switch (err) { > + case -EINPROGRESS: > + case -EBUSY: > + wait_for_completion(&wait->completion); > + reinit_completion(&wait->completion); > + err = wait->err; > + break; > + }; > + > + return err; > +} This assumes that the request is used with backlog. For non-backlog requests this would result in a memory leak as EBUSY in that case is a fatal error. So this API can't be used without backlog. We could introduce a flag to indicate whether we want backlog or not, or maybe we should change our API so that in the non-backlog case we return something other than EBUSY. Opinions? 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-fscrypt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |