From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] e1000: rework driver hardware reset locking Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:42:04 -0400 Message-ID: <44A08CEC.1080108@pobox.com> References: <20060622051815.25497.89192.stgit@gitlost.site> <20060622052009.25497.46358.stgit@gitlost.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Brandeburg, Jesse" , "Kok, Auke" , "Ronciak, John" Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:12500 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030589AbWF0BmH (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:42:07 -0400 To: "Kok, Auke" In-Reply-To: <20060622052009.25497.46358.stgit@gitlost.site> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Kok, Auke wrote: > @@ -631,6 +627,9 @@ e1000_set_ringparam(struct net_device *n > tx_ring_size = sizeof(struct e1000_tx_ring) * adapter->num_tx_queues; > rx_ring_size = sizeof(struct e1000_rx_ring) * adapter->num_rx_queues; > > + while (test_and_set_bit(__E1000_RESETTING, &adapter->flags)) > + msleep(1); This is a bit worrying, but no outright objection. We don't want to see these accumulate.