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-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
