[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <10AE27BE-1830-4AAD-83E6-20001BC430D8@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:17:28 -0500
From: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: timur.tabi@...il.com, afleming@...escale.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Wait for both RX and TX to stop
On Apr 21, 2010, at 12:36 AM, David Miller wrote:
> 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.
I understand, its more a sense that we are saying we want to time out for what I consider a catastrophic HW failure.
- k--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists