From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AC35B6EF3 for ; Tue, 1 May 2012 14:37:59 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1335845444.3621.11.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/17] powerpc: Add PFO support to the VIO bus From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Kent Yoder In-Reply-To: <1335841603.3621.8.camel@pasglop> References: <1334242825.18090.4.camel@key-ThinkPad-W510> <1334243302.18090.10.camel@key-ThinkPad-W510> <1335841603.3621.8.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 14:10:44 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > 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. Cheers, Ben.