netdev - Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Wait for both RX and TX to stop

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20100421.143330.80015172.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	galak@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	timur.tabi@...il.com, afleming@...escale.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Wait for both RX and TX to stop

From: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:13:00 -0500

> I'm not opposed, I'm just asking if we are saying we shouldn't be using cpu_relax() for spinning on HW status registers ever.
> 
> If we are suggesting that cpu_relax() shouldn't be used in these scenarios going forward I'm ok w/the change you suggest and starting to convert other cpu_relax() calls to use spin_event_timeout()


Kumar this isn't an either-or thing.

In both cases we're using cpu_relax().

But by using spin_event_timeout() you're getting both the cpu_relax()
and a break-out in case the hardware gets wedged for some reason.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html