Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:52:05PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote: >> Herbert Xu wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 04:56:11PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: >>>> @@ -830,7 +838,7 @@ static void kcryptd_async_done(struct cr >>>> return; >>>> } >>>> >>>> - mempool_free(ablkcipher_request_cast(async_req), cc->req_pool); >>>> + mempool_free(dmreq->req, cc->req_pool); >>> Why do we need all this complexity? Can't just fix it by using >>> cc->req? >> No. There can be parallel req allocated, also cc->req can be NULL. >> (seems that these structs are overcomplicated already:-) > > Fair enough. However we still shouldn't need to have dmreq->req > since > > dmreq->req == (char *)dmreq - sizeof(dmreq->req) > > In fact just pass the request itself as data and derive dmreq > from that.
Like this? struct ablkcipher_request *req = (char *)dmreq - cc->dmreq_start; mempool_free(req, cc->req_pool); Yes, this should be enough. Just some nice inline function will be better for such pointer game... So we need add just dmreq->ctx field now. Milan -- mb...@redhat.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
