[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181005.145043.1753276054031656255.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 14:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: sunil.kovvuri@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
sgoutham@...vell.com, amakarov@...vell.com, lbartosik@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/15] octeontx2-af: Add mailbox support infra
From: sunil.kovvuri@...il.com
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:51:47 +0530
> +int otx2_mbox_init(struct otx2_mbox *mbox, void *hwbase, struct pci_dev *pdev,
> + void *reg_base, int direction, int ndevs)
> +{
> + int devid;
> + struct otx2_mbox_dev *mdev;
Please order local variable declarations from longest to shortest line.
Please audit your entire series for this problem.
> +int otx2_mbox_busy_poll_for_rsp(struct otx2_mbox *mbox, int devid)
> +{
> + struct otx2_mbox_dev *mdev = &mbox->dev[devid];
> + unsigned long timeout = jiffies + 1 * HZ;
> +
> + while (!time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> + if (mdev->num_msgs == mdev->msgs_acked)
> + return 0;
> + cpu_relax();
> + }
> + return -EIO;
> +}
Probably not a good idea to poll something in the kernel for an entire
second. Please add a preemption point like a usleep() or similar.
cpu_relax() does not yield the cpu to the scheduler.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists