Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:44:47 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Cc: david@fries.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, p_gortmaker@yahoo.com,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ne.c msleep not mdelay
Message-ID: <20080830154447.770aaca0@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20080830.233647.05599714.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
References: <20080830024453.GB24929@spacedout.fries.net>
	<20080830095906.6cad8647@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<20080830.233647.05599714.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 759
Lines: 16

> There are already some msleep() in probe_irq_on() which is called just
> before here.  And this part is not protected by any spinlock or
> preempt_disable.
> 
> So, if rescheduling was dangerous here, we already have potential
> problems, no?

Yes we do but I didn't manage to stop the other mistakes getting in when
they did. If you take a schedule you get results back from the probe_irq
that tend to suck in other random ISA device events (ISA being edge
triggered nobody was ever careful about spurious irq)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/