On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:26:43 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > I wonder if low latency for ancient Rhine-I chips is worth the trouble. > > IIRC, the point was that mdelay was getting called in interrupt > context and causing ugly messages to show-up in dmesg.
I suppose the patch back then was to reduce latency; the ugly messages in the kernel ring buffer were _introduced_ with the patch (you shouldn't get error messages calling mdelay in interrupt context because that's what mdelay is for). > Would the patch below be sufficient? Or does the whole patch need > to be reverted? I'd revert the whole thing. There's no point in having the additional work_struct complexity if we end up calling mdelay anyway. Roger - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
