From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/17] powerpc: Add PFO support to the VIO bus Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 14:10:44 +1000 Message-ID: <1335845444.3621.11.camel@pasglop> References: <1334242825.18090.4.camel@key-ThinkPad-W510> <1334243302.18090.10.camel@key-ThinkPad-W510> <1335841603.3621.8.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Kent Yoder Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1335841603.3621.8.camel@pasglop> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org > Else, what about ceding the processor ? Or at the very least reducing > the thread priority for a bit ? > > Shouldn't we also enforce to always have a timeout ? IE. Something like > 30s or so if nothing specified to avoid having the kernel just hard > lock... > > In general I don't like that sort of synchronous code, I'd rather return > the busy status up the chain which gives a chance to the caller to take > more appropriate measures depending on what it's doing, but that really > depends what you use that synchronous call for. I suppose if it's for > configuration type operations, it's ok... In any case, don't resend the whole series, just that one patch. Cheers, Ben.