[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 03/17] powerpc: Add PFO support to the VIO bus

> Else, what about ceding the processor ? Or at the very least reducing
> the thread priority for a bit ?
> Shouldn't we also enforce to always have a timeout ? IE. Something like
> 30s or so if nothing specified to avoid having the kernel just hard
> lock...
> In general I don't like that sort of synchronous code, I'd rather return
> the busy status up the chain which gives a chance to the caller to take
> more appropriate measures depending on what it's doing, but that really
> depends what you use that synchronous call for. I suppose if it's for
> configuration type operations, it's ok...

In any case, don't resend the whole series, just that one patch.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-01 07:21    [W:0.124 / U:37.000 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site