[PATCH 4/6] crypto: talitos - fix GFP flag usage

[Kumar Gala]

On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Kim Phillips wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:26:14 -0500
> Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:33:45PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> use GFP_ATOMIC when necessary; use atomic_t when allocating
>>>>> submit_count.
>>>>
>>>> why?
>>>
>>> You mean why are atomics required? Yes that is a good question.
>>
>> Yep. the commit message isn't explaining why, just what :)
>
> In honouring requests that don't have the CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_SLEEP  
> set,
> afaict, it's the standard non-wait variant GFP that drivers use (see
> the ixp4xx driver for e.g.).

so GFP_ATOMIC and atomic_t aren't related.  I can understand the need  
for GFP_ATOMIC, but I don't get why something needs to be declared  
atomic_t.

- k