Re: [PATCH 2/2] ne.c msleep not mdelay

[Atsushi Nemoto]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:59:06 +0100, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > mdelay(10) replaced by msleep(10) to give up the CPU, it's just
> > waiting for an interrupt, so timing isn't critical.
> 
> It is too critical for a reschedule to occur.
> 
> NAK this one.

There are already some msleep() in probe_irq_on() which is called just
before here.  And this part is not protected by any spinlock or
preempt_disable.

So, if rescheduling was dangerous here, we already have potential
problems, no?

---
Atsushi Nemoto
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/