From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Luethi Subject: Re: via_rhine modules error on 2.6.16 with mii-tool Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:31:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20060413203147.GA2874@k3.hellgate.ch> References: <20060327203946.GA11824@k3.hellgate.ch> <20060413182638.GC25854@tuxdriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Marco Berizzi , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail15.bluewin.ch ([195.186.18.63]:1770 "EHLO mail15.bluewin.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964868AbWDMUcw (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:32:52 -0400 To: "John W. Linville" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060413182638.GC25854@tuxdriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:26:43 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > I wonder if low latency for ancient Rhine-I chips is worth the trouble. > > IIRC, the point was that mdelay was getting called in interrupt > context and causing ugly messages to show-up in dmesg. I suppose the patch back then was to reduce latency; the ugly messages in the kernel ring buffer were _introduced_ with the patch (you shouldn't get error messages calling mdelay in interrupt context because that's what mdelay is for). > Would the patch below be sufficient? Or does the whole patch need > to be reverted? I'd revert the whole thing. There's no point in having the additional work_struct complexity if we end up calling mdelay anyway. Roger