From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Wait for both RX and TX to stop Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:33:56 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20100420.180646.216759318.davem@davemloft.net> <20100420.223659.236667659.davem@davemloft.net> <10AE27BE-1830-4AAD-83E6-20001BC430D8@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: David Miller , afleming@freescale.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Kumar Gala Return-path: Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:53670 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755296Ab0DUOe0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:34:26 -0400 Received: by pwj9 with SMTP id 9so5125271pwj.19 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:34:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <10AE27BE-1830-4AAD-83E6-20001BC430D8@kernel.crashing.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Kumar Gala 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. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale