From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267936AbUH3O0R (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:26:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268163AbUH3O0R (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:26:17 -0400 Received: from 104.engsoc.carleton.ca ([134.117.69.104]:63908 "EHLO certainkey.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267936AbUH3O0L (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:26:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:24:53 -0400 From: Jean-Luc Cooke To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: CryptoAPI: schedual while atomic Message-ID: <20040830132453.GG11307@certainkey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org While I was playing with using the CryptoAPI in /dev/random for my own purposes, I noticed that I was getting quite a few "schedual while atomic!" console messages. Talking with Michal Ludvig, I seem to think that a "!is_atomic()" check inside crypto_yield() or passing a flag during crypto_alloc_tfm() would make a lot of sense. This may be more directed at James Morris, but here it goes: Can we have some logic to either check for or turn off crypto_yield()'s in crypto/internal.h's crypto_yield() ? Cheers, JLC