Linus Torvalds writes:
> In article <396F2DF2.6FB2A67A@uow.edu.au>,
> Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >We don't want to create another kernel thread just for cardbus.
>
> Actually, we do.
>
> In fact, we already did. There's a thread per socket, exactly because in
> the end a lot of these things need to have a thread context. Do a 'ps ax'
> and grep for "CardBus Watcher"..
>
> However, for all the wrong reasons (ie this is not how the old cs layer
> works), the rest of the pcmcia layer doesn't know about this, and uses
> timers for all its delays (because it thinks that it runs from an
> interrupt context), instead of just doing a "schedule_timeout()".
>
> >I think the best general way to fix this is for the timer handler to do
> >nothing but register a callback with something which is running in
> >process context, such as `swapper'.
>
> Actually, the best thing is to not use a timer handler at all, because
> cs really _can_ sleep now. Which would make the code a lot more readable
> too (the current timer-driven state-machine is rather opaque..)
>
> [ Except this only works with the yenta.c driver - the other low-level
> drivers don't do this. I'm inclined to remove the other low-level
> drivers from the kernel, and just say that the in-kernel pcmcia
> support only supports cardbus controllers until somebody decides to
> port them to use kernel threads. Which should be fairly easy, but
> requires testing. ]
Please, no, let's not change again. Let's get things fixed. Put out a
CFV. I really would like to have 2.4 working properly on my laptop,
with it's mix of CardBus and older PCMCIA cards.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:20 EST