netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] ks8842: Do the TX timeout work in workqueue context.

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 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]

Date:	Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	richard.rojfors@...agicore.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ks8842: Do the TX timeout work in workqueue context.

From: Richard Röjfors <richard.rojfors@...agicore.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:01:26 +0200

> Currently all code that needs to be run at TX timeout is done in the
> calling context, where bottom halves are disabled. Some of the code
> blocks, so it needs to be done in a different context. This patch
> adds in a work struct which is scheduled at TX timeout. Then the
> timeout code is executed within work queue context.
> 
> In the process an unnecessary bank change before resetting the
> controller was removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Richard Röjfors <richard.rojfors@...agicore.com>

If the bank change removal is unrelated to this change you should
do it in a seperate change.

This way it's easy for someone to find out if a regression is
caused by the TX workqueue bits, rather than this bank change
removal.

So, please submit this as a two patch sequence, one that does
the bank change line removal.  And then a second that does
the TX workqueue bits.

Thanks.
--
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