Re: [PATCH 2/2] ne.c msleep not mdelay

[Alan Cox]

> There are already some msleep() in probe_irq_on() which is called just
> before here.  And this part is not protected by any spinlock or
> preempt_disable.
> 
> So, if rescheduling was dangerous here, we already have potential
> problems, no?

Yes we do but I didn't manage to stop the other mistakes getting in when
they did. If you take a schedule you get results back from the probe_irq
that tend to suck in other random ISA device events (ISA being edge
triggered nobody was ever careful about spurious irq)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/