Subject: Re: More braindead code
To: Lennart Augustsson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 01/14/2000 17:04:05
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:20:18 +0100
Lennart Augustsson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Again, I can't believe my eyes! There is code in there that may loop for up to 500ms
> using delay(). I.e. the kernel will busy wait for 0.5s. And looking a little further the I
> see that it can loop for 0.1s during reset. I've not checked, but the only reason for
> using delay() rather than tsleep() is that these routines are called from an interrupt
> context, which in my opinion makes using delay() even more unforgivable since it may
> block important interrupts.
> Clearly, the MII code needs a little restructuring to get rid of these atrocities.
Look a little more carefully... when it's called from ANY context other than
via ioctl, it's all asynchronous; no busy-wait.
I'm doing some work on the MII code currently, to make it even MORE asynch,
but between moving to a new house and vacation, I haven't gotten it finished
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>