Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] hp100: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic bug in hp100_login_to_vg_hub | From | Siegfried Loeffler <> | Date | Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:13:37 +0100 |
| |
I am sorry, I still have some of these 100VGAnyLan boards somewhere in the attic but I am unable to test. I haven't used 100VGAnyLan for the last 20 years ! :-) - I wonder if anybody is still using it?
Cheers Siegfried Loeffler, DG1SEK
On 14.12.17 04:56, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: > Sorry, > > I think I know your meaning now. > > Maybe we can unlock the spinlock before > "schedule_timeout_interruptible" and then lock again? > Like: > spin_unlock(...); > schedule_timeout_interruptible(1); > spin_lock(...); > > > Best wishes, > Jia-Ju Bai > > > On 2017/12/14 11:34, David Miller wrote: >> From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> >> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:13:15 +0800 >> >>> Thanks for reply :) >>> I think I should use "udelay(100000/HZ)" instead, do you think it is >>> right? >> The delay is too long, please do not ignore that part of my critique >> of your change. >> >> You cannot delay so long under a lock, that's why the code is trying >> to use a sleeping delay. >> >> I'm not going to explain this problem another time. > >
| |