Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 May 2005 13:50:56 +1000 | Subject | Re: [CRYPTO]: Only reschedule if !in_atomic() | From | Herbert Xu <> |
| |
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:20:26PM -0400, James Morris wrote: > > a) remove the scheudling point and see if anyone complains > b) if so, add a flag
OK. I think we should go with the flag though since it could also be used for memory allocation.
I've just added some code which allocates a scratch space for unaligned input to the VIA Padlock (IPv4 ESP traffic is normally unaligned due to the 20-byte IP header). It could use this flag to determine whether it should do GFP_KERNEL or GFP_ATOMIC.
Actually, has anyone considered using a 4-byte IP option padding? It's legal per RFC-791 but it'd be interesting to know how well it works in the field.
Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> 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-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |