Hi,
> So I'm holding off on applying this for now. Please think it over and
> either tell me the current patch is OK, or fix it up. There's not
> really too much urgency because a change like this is something I
> would be comfortable merging between 2.6.21-rc1 and -rc2.
You're absolutely right.
Looking at this one more time, I think it actually may be buggy:
> @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ struct ib_cq *ehca_create_cq(struct ib_d
> spin_lock_init(&my_cq->spinlock);
> spin_lock_init(&my_cq->cb_lock);
> spin_lock_init(&my_cq->task_lock);
> +init_completion(&my_cq->zero_callba
remove yield() and use wait_for_completion() in order to wait for running
completion handlers finished before destroying associated completion queue
Signed-off-by: Hoang-Nam Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
ehca_classes.h |3 +++
ehca_cq.c |5 +++--
ehca_irq.c |6 +-
3 f
I agree with Christoph -- the use of wait_for_completion() in a loop
makes no sense. When you send a new copy of this patch without
whitespace damage, please fix that up too...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M
> @@ -332,7 +333,7 @@ int ehca_destroy_cq(struct ib_cq *cq)
> spin_lock_irqsave(&ehca_cq_idr_lock, flags);
> while (my_cq->nr_callbacks) {
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ehca_cq_idr_lock, flags);
> - yield();
> + wait_for_completion(&my_cq->zer
Hi,
this patch removes yield() and uses wait_for_completion() in order
to wait for running completion handlers finished before destroying
associated completion queue.
Thanks
Nam
Signed-off-by: Hoang-Nam Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
ehca_classes.h |3 +++
ehca_cq.c |3 ++-
ehca_i
6 matches
Mail list logo
