Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:64478 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751285AbYAKCGi convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:06:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [ipw3945-devel] [PATCH 2/5] iwlwifi: iwl3945 synchronize interruptand tasklet for down iwlwifi Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:42:58 -0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20080111_020642_606418_1C2F79A5) In-Reply-To: References: <11998765481610-git-send-email-joonwpark81@gmail.com> From: "Chatre, Reinette" To: "Joonwoo Park" Cc: "Zhu, Yi" , , Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:25 PM, Joonwoo Park wrote: > 2008/1/11, Chatre, Reinette : >> >> Could synchronize_irq() be moved into iwl_disable_interrupts() ? I am > > At this time, iwl_disable_interrupts() can be called with irq > disabled, so for do that I think additional modification would be > needed. If this is the case where iwl_disable_interrupts() is called while in the ISR (where interrupts are disabled), then this behavior may be what we want as synchronize_irq() (as I understand) waits for the handler to complete irrespective of irq enable/disable. What modification are you considering? >> also wondering if we cannot call tasklet_kill() before >> iwl_disable_interrupts() ... thus preventing it from being scheduled >> when we are going down. > > Thanks for your catch, it seems tasklet can re-enable interrupts. > I'll handle and make an another patch for them at this weekend :) Please think it through also as I am exploring with you ... Reinette