On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:57:15 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:05:38 -0500 > Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, I merged the code, but looking deeper at phy its clear I missed > > some things. > > > > Looking into libphy's workqueue stuff, it has the following sequence: > > > > disable interrupts > > schedule_work() > > > > ... time passes ... > > ... workqueue routine is called ... > > > > enable interrupts > > handle interrupt > > > > I really have to question if a workqueue was the best choice of > > direction for such a sequence. You don't want to put off handling an > > interrupt, with interrupts disabled, for a potentially unbounded amount > > of time. > > That'll lock the box on UP, or if the timer fires on the current CPU? oh. "disable interrupts" == disable_irq(), not local_irq_disable()? Not so bad ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
