Re: [PATCH v4] introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

[Alan Cox]

> A simple fact of life is that drivers -will- do that sort spinning. They
> don't always have a choice. Now do we want all drivers to do it
> differently and get it wrong (such as not having timeouts etc...) or do
> we provide a helper that has the added advantage of allowing us a lot
> more easily to audit them ?

Given the proposed helper isn't a sane default for x86 I think it needs a
good deal more work. It also hides details like that timing which is bad
sometimes.

> I think it's all benefit to move that sort of cruft to a generic helper
> like that in the long run.

Perhaps - but the helper needs to be right
--
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/