From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Please pull 'bcm43xx' branch of wireless-2.6? Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:01:43 -0400 Message-ID: <44CE61A7.4010207@garzik.org> References: <20060728002206.GA11621@tuxdriver.com> <20060728002358.GB11621@tuxdriver.com> <20060728003753.GC11621@tuxdriver.com> <20060731191014.GD10138@tuxdriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:61576 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932190AbWGaUBq (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:01:46 -0400 To: "John W. Linville" In-Reply-To: <20060731191014.GD10138@tuxdriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org John W. Linville wrote: > Jeff, if a 10ms maximum delay is still acceptable to you, then please > pull from the bcm43xx branch of wireless-2.6 into the upstream branch > of netdev-2.6. Just to be clear, 'upstream' not 'upstream-fixes', correct? > P.S. FWIW, I'm still not totally happy w/ the (potential for a) > long busy wait. But, this series of patches makes things better by > 100x over what is currently in the tree. So, it seems worthwhile. > I'll keep further reductions as an item on my TODO list, FWIW... :-) Agreed. And there are some existing busy-waits that (1) _obviously_ need to be converted to mdelay(), and (2) eventually need to be converted to msleep(). Overall, the Linux kernel community consensus is that long synchronous delays spinning the CPU should be avoided. Jeff