>On Monday, March 3, 2014 8:13 AM, Ian Abbott wrote:
>>On 2014-03-02 04:13, Chase Southwood wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:49 PM, Chase Southwood
>>> wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:26 AM, Ian Abbott
wrote:
> On 2014-02-28 07:35, Chase Southwood wrote:
>>
>> [sn
On 2014-03-02 04:13, Chase Southwood wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:49 PM, Chase Southwood
wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:26 AM, Ian Abbott wrote:
On 2014-02-28 07:35, Chase Southwood wrote:
[snip]
In the case of s626_send_dac(), it doesn't seem to be used in any
critic
On 2014-03-01 05:48, Chase Southwood wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:26 AM, Ian Abbott wrote:
On 2014-02-28 07:35, Chase Southwood wrote:
And finally, are timeouts here even necessary or helpful, or are there
any better ways to do it?
In the case of s626_send_dac(), it doesn't seem to
>On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:49 PM, Chase Southwood
> wrote:
>>On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:26 AM, Ian Abbott wrote:
>>>On 2014-02-28 07:35, Chase Southwood wrote:
[snip]
>>In the case of s626_send_dac(), it doesn't seem to be used in any
>>critical sections, so it could make use of Ha
>On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:26 AM, Ian Abbott wrote:
>>On 2014-02-28 07:35, Chase Southwood wrote:
>> Smatch located a handful of while loops testing readl calls in s626.c.
>> Since these while loops depend on readl succeeding, it's safer to make
>> sure they time out eventually.
>>
>> Signe
On 2014-02-28 07:35, Chase Southwood wrote:
Smatch located a handful of while loops testing readl calls in s626.c.
Since these while loops depend on readl succeeding, it's safer to make
sure they time out eventually.
Signed-off-by: Chase Southwood
---
Ian and/or Hartley, I'd love your comments
Smatch located a handful of while loops testing readl calls in s626.c.
Since these while loops depend on readl succeeding, it's safer to make
sure they time out eventually.
Signed-off-by: Chase Southwood
---
Ian and/or Hartley, I'd love your comments on this. It seems to me that
we want these ki
