Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Wait for both RX and TX to stop

[Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> 
>> I understand, its more a sense that we are saying we want to time out for what I consider a catastrophic HW failure.
> 
> And how else will you detect and recover from such a failure without a
> timeout?  And are you absolutely certain that there will never be a
> programming failure that will cause this loop to spin forever?
> 
> If you're really opposed to a timeout, you can still use
> spin_event_timeout() by just setting the timeout to -1 and adding a
> comment explaining why.

I'm not opposed, I'm just asking if we are saying we shouldn't be using cpu_relax() for spinning on HW status registers ever.

If we are suggesting that cpu_relax() shouldn't be used in these scenarios going forward I'm ok w/the change you suggest and starting to convert other cpu_relax() calls to use spin_event_timeout()

- k