Here's a repost of the patch with the suggested changes.
This patch changes the EEH_MAX_FAILS action from panic to printing an
error message. Panicking under under this condition is too harsh.
Although performance will be affected and the device may not recover,
the system is still running,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:09:46 +1000
"Stephen Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you must be thinking of mdelay().
Correct you are! I didn't even know there was an msleep() so I just
mapped it to mdelay() ;)
I'll have to look at msleep() though, there are places we could use it.
Cheer
Hi Sean,
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:47:56 -0400 Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I guess I am too x86 centric. On the x86 an msleep does not give up the
> CPU. It does a busy wait.
I think you must be thinking of mdelay().
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:17:08 -0500
"Nathan Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sean MacLennan wrote:
>
> > Why can you not msleep within a spinlock? And when was this change
> > brought in?
>
> Giving up the cpu while holding a spinlock risks locking up the system
> in the worst case -- if anothe
2008/7/20 Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mike Mason wrote:
>>
>> This patch changes the EEH_MAX_FAILS action from panic to printing
>> an error message. Panicking under under this condition is too
>> harsh.
>> /* re-read the slot reset state */
>>
Mike Mason wrote:
>
> This patch changes the EEH_MAX_FAILS action from panic to printing
> an error message. Panicking under under this condition is too
> harsh. Although performance will be affected and the device may not
> recover, the system is still running, which at the very least,
> should
Sean MacLennan wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:28:36 -0700
> "Mike Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch changes the EEH_MAX_FAILS action from panic to printing an
> > error message. Panicking under under this condition is too harsh.
> > Although performance will be affected and the
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:28:36 -0700
"Mike Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch changes the EEH_MAX_FAILS action from panic to printing an
> error message. Panicking under under this condition is too harsh.
> Although performance will be affected and the device may not recover,
> the syst
This patch changes the EEH_MAX_FAILS action from panic to printing an error
message. Panicking under under this condition is too harsh. Although
performance will be affected and the device may not recover, the system is
still running, which at the very least, should allow for a more graceful
