From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6] be2net: use semaphore instead of spin lock for mbox_lock Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:21:23 +0000 Message-ID: <1292336483.20458.1.camel@bwh-desktop> References: <1292334367-11148-1-git-send-email-ivecera@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, sathyap@serverengines.com, subbus@serverengines.com, sarveshwarb@serverengines.com, ajitk@serverengines.com, davem@davemloft.net To: Ivan Vecera Return-path: Received: from mail.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:47293 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751504Ab0LNOV1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:21:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1292334367-11148-1-git-send-email-ivecera@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 14:46 +0100, Ivan Vecera wrote: > Since the mbox polling uses the schedule_timeout, the mbox_lock should be > a semaphore and not a spin lock. > The commit f25b03a replaced udelay() with schedule_timeout() but didn't > change the mbox_lock to a semaphore or a mutex. [...] I see no reason for this to be a semaphore; use a mutex instead. Ben -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.