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

Message-Id: <20100420.223659.236667659.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:36:59 -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: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:22:19 -0500

> 
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 8:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
> 
>> From: Timur Tabi <timur.tabi@...il.com>
>> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:01:48 -0500
>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> spin_event_timeout doesn't make sense for this.  The patch is fine.
>>> 
>>> Can you please elaborate on that?  I don't understand why you think
>>> that.  spin_event_timeout() takes an expression and a timeout, and
>>> loops over the expression calling cpu_relax(), just like this loop
>>> does.
>> 
>> Indeed it does, Kumar this request seems reasonable.
> 
> Are we saying that cpu_relax() is useless and should be removed if we are spinning on a HW register?

Kumar, take a deep breath and a step back.

spin_event_timeout() does the cpu_relax() too, that's what Timur is
trying to tell you.

The code will be basically identical as far as I can tell.
--
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