On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:05:38 -0500 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I merged the code, but looking deeper at phy its clear I missed > some things. > > Looking into libphy's workqueue stuff, it has the following sequence: > > disable interrupts > schedule_work() > > ... time passes ... > ... workqueue routine is called ... > > enable interrupts > handle interrupt > > I really have to question if a workqueue was the best choice of > direction for such a sequence. You don't want to put off handling an > interrupt, with interrupts disabled, for a potentially unbounded amount > of time. That'll lock the box on UP, or if the timer fires on the current CPU? > Maybe the best course of action is to mark it with CONFIG_BROKEN until > it gets fixed. hm, maybe. I wonder if as a short-term palliative we could remove the current_is_keventd() call and drop rtnl_lock. Or export current_is_keventd ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
