On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 06:31:01PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Tuesday 27 June 2006 18:12, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Michael Buesch wrote: > > > So, I will submit a patch to lower the udelay(10) to udelay(1) > > > and we can close the discussion? ;) > > > > No, that totally avoids my point. Your "otherwise idle machine" test is > > probably nowhere near worst case in the field, for loops that can > > potentially lock the CPU for a long time upon hardware fault. And then > > there are the huge delays in specific functions that I pointed out... > > wtf are you requesting from me? > 1) I proved you that the loop does only spin _once_ or even _less_. > 2) If the hardware is faulty, the user must replace it. > Because, if the hardware is faulty, it can crash the whole > machine anyway, obviously. > > 3) There is no "huge delay". I proved it with my logs. > -> No CPU hog => Nothing to fix.
Michael, I think Jeff's concern is that by using udelay you are busy-waiting. And, the for loop limit of 100000 means you could freeze the kernel for up to a whole second. Granted that this won't happen very often and in the grand scheme of things a second isn't all _that_ long, but still it would be better to avoid a delay like that -- a second could be the time it takes to avoid a meltdown at the nuclear power plant. :-) Could you not use msleep instead of udelay (and scale the for loop appropriately)? What would be the problem with that? It would get rid of the busy waiting. To be fair, this code was already in the driver and was only being moved by this patch. Still, what better time to fix it than now? :-) I'll go ahead and reshuffle wireless-2.6 to drop this patch. A new patch that passes muster w/ Jeff will be most welcome! :-) Thanks, John -- John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
