[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFA6WYM7JpE+h+6FC-YmqjyLo-xopeMg=d0BhOLx1C+N-tsZvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:27:00 +0530
From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>, mpm@...enic.com,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>, tee-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] tee: add supp_nowait flag in tee_context struct
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 15:24, Daniel Thompson
<daniel.thompson@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 01:00:49PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 19:53, Daniel Thompson
> > <daniel.thompson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
> > > > index 9ddb89e..5d6c317 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
> > > > @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ static int tee_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > > > if (IS_ERR(ctx))
> > > > return PTR_ERR(ctx);
> > > >
> > > > + ctx->supp_nowait = false;
> > > > filp->private_data = ctx;
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -981,6 +982,7 @@ tee_client_open_context(struct tee_context *start,
> > > > } while (IS_ERR(ctx) && PTR_ERR(ctx) != -ENOMEM);
> > > >
> > > > put_device(put_dev);
> > > > + ctx->supp_nowait = true;
> > >
> > > Why automatically set supp_nowait inside open_context() ?
> > >
> >
> > I think this is the default behaviour (non-blocking request) that any
> > in kernel client would expect. Also this flag could be configured
> > again before call to open_session() if any in kernel client requires
> > different behaviour.
>
> Makes sense. I think this is a deep enough behaviour to warrant proper
> commenting though.
>
Sure, will add comments.
-Sumit
>
> Daniel.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists