lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
On Monday, November 22, 2010 5:27 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>>>> Still we have the busy waiting in the TX path. Maybe you can move the
>>>>> waiting before accessing the if[1] and remove the busy waiting here.
>>>> I can't understand your saying.
>>>> For transmitting data, calling pch_can_rw_msg_obj is mandatory.
>>> Yes, but the busy wait is not needed. It should be enough to do the
>>> busy-waiting _before_ accessing the if[1].
>>
>> Do you mean we should create other pch_can_rw_msg_obj which doesn't have busy wait ?
>ACK, and this non busy waiting is use in the TX path. But you add a busy
>wait only function before accessing the if[1] in the TX path.

The "busy waiting" of pch_can_rw_msg_obj is for next processing accesses to Message object.
If deleting this busy waiting, next processing can access to Message object, regardless previous transfer doesn't
complete yet.
Thus, I think, the "busy waiting" is necessary.

---
Thanks,

Tomoya MORINAGA
OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Kleine-Budde" <mkl@pengutronix.de>
To: "Tomoya MORINAGA" <tomoya-linux@dsn.okisemi.com>
Cc: <andrew.chih.howe.khor@intel.com>; <socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de>; "Samuel Ortiz" <sameo@linux.intel.com>;
<margie.foster@intel.com>; <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; "Christian Pellegrin" <chripell@fsfe.org>;
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; <yong.y.wang@intel.com>; "Masayuki Ohtake" <masa-korg@dsn.okisemi.com>;
<kok.howg.ewe@intel.com>; <joel.clark@intel.com>; "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>; "Wolfgang Grandegger"
<wg@grandegger.com>; <qi.wang@intel.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v3] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add Flow control,




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-24 01:13    [W:0.798 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site