From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: timur@tabi.org (Timur Tabi) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:20:29 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Convert PowerPC macro spin_event_timeout() to architecture independent macro In-Reply-To: <51F9A8F1.9020704@codeaurora.org> References: <1375187900-17582-1-git-send-email-B44344@freescale.com> <1375187900-17582-3-git-send-email-B44344@freescale.com> <20130731071630.GI8868@codeaurora.org> <51F9A5FE.8030608@codeaurora.org> <51F9A80E.5010307@tabi.org> <51F9A8F1.9020704@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <51F9A9CD.1040804@tabi.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/31/2013 07:16 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > cpu_relax() is usually just a compiler barrier or an instruction hint to > the cpu that it should cool down because we're spinning in a tight loop. > It certainly shouldn't be calling into the scheduler. Ah yes, I remember now. So it does seem that if we can fix the problem of non-incrementing 'jiffies', then this macro can be used in interrupts. Of course, that assumes that spinning in interrupt context is a good idea to begin with. Maybe we shouldn't be encouraging it? >> > FYI, you might want to look at the code reviews for spin_event_timeout() >> > on the linuxppc-dev mailing list, back in March 2009. >> > > Sure. Any pointers? Otherwise I'll go digging around the archives. https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-March/thread.html -- Timur Tabi