[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150414.144052.843726517109270692.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:40:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: hariprasad@...lsio.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, leedom@...lsio.com, nirranjan@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] cxgb4vf: Implement mailbox access locking and list
management
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:29:16 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Hariprasad Shenai <hariprasad@...lsio.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:00:45 +0530
>
>> + for (i = 0; ; i += ms) {
>> + /* If we've waited too long, return a busy indication. This
>> + * really ought to be based on our initial position in the
>> + * mailbox access list but this is a start. We very rarely
>> + * contend on access to the mailbox ...
>> + */
>> + if (i > 4 * FW_CMD_MAX_TIMEOUT) {
>
> So you're going to sit here potentially polling for 40000 ms in a non-preemptable
> context?
>
> I don't think so...
Also, you haven't really explained in the commit message what the real
problem is and why the ordering of processing these messages matters
so much and furthermore what might go wrong if things are processed
out of order.
You have to assume I'm a complete idiot when I read your patches and
it is your job to explain to someone with now knowledge of your driver
or your hardware what you are doing.
--
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