Re: [PATCH/RFC] I/O-check interface for driver's error handling

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh_at_kernel.crashing.org>
Date: 2005-03-05 10:27:07
On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 00:18 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On So 05-03-05 10:03:37, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 23:57 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 
> > > What prevents driver from being run on another CPU, maybe just doing
> > > mdelay() between hardware accesses? 
> > 
> > Almost all drivers that I know have some sort of locking. Nothing nasty
> > about it. Besides, you can't expect everything to be as simple as
> > putting two bit of lego together, the problem isn't simple.
> 
> If error() is allowed to sleep, then yes, its probably easy enough. If
> it is not allowed to sleep, it will just postpone work to context that
> is allowed to sleep, and it will probably be okay, too.

Yes, it's my itend that the notification callback is to be called in a
task context where it can sleep.

> => there are some locking issues, but they are probably easy
> enough. Sorry for noise.
> 								Pavel
> 
-- 
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Sat Mar 5 00:30:18 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:36 EST