From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] PHYLIB: IRQ event workqueue handling fixes Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:46:06 +1000 Message-ID: <1192830366.17235.2.camel@pasglop> References: <20071015125301.GC3015@ff.dom.local> <20071016062108.GB1000@ff.dom.local> <20071017085809.GA1658@ff.dom.local> <20071019143921.GB2598@ff.dom.local> Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Andy Fleming , Andrew Morton , Jeff Garzik , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:60530 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751958AbXJSVsu (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:48:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20071019143921.GB2598@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Actually I'm not convinced with this explanation. It seems to me that > since there are such serious locking problems (especially with rntl), > there could be once more considered a private workqueue. You've > written earlier about being a lonely user of this code. But, since > Benjamin offered his help with changing to mutexes, which looks like > very reasonable idea to me (probably I miss most of the points...), > maybe it's very good opportunity to both: make this code better and > double the user base! I'm interested in looking for such solution > if Benjamin thinks there could be too few problems for him... So, > let somebody tell us what could be wrong with this idea? My main problem is time :-) But I need to do the change to mutex if I am to use phylib for emac. I can't tell when I'll have time to do it tho. Ben.