Stephen Evanchik <evanchsa@clarkson.edu> writes:
> On Friday 03 January 2003 12:47, you wrote:
> | Why not put the spinlock/unlock inside hermes_bap_seek()? Smaller, better
> | contained and more readable.
>
> That's the better solution, I'm trying to coordinate a bit with the
> maintainer. The only reason I didn't do this in the first place is because
> there is a (possibly unecessary) delay loop inside hermes_bap_seek that I
> believe is trying to combat the same problem. I'm awaiting a response from
> the maintainer since he knows a bit more about the hardware than I do.
>
There is something not quite right about this patch. I used have a ton
of errors in my logs, and this patch seemed to clear this out nicely.
When I run with a patched driver now, I run for about 20 minutes with
various loads and sudenly the ksoftirqd_CPU0 process starts to hog my
CPU and not wanting to let go. As soon as I pull out the card, the
load returns to normal.
Is there any way I can provide more details on what is happening?
>
> Stephen
>
mvh,
A
-- Alexander Hoogerhuis | alexh@ihatent.com CCNP - CCDP - MCNE - CCSE | +47 908 21 485 "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." --Scott McNealy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:00:32 EST