Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mac80211: make max_network_latency notifieratomic safe

From: Johannes Berg
Date: Wed Jun 09 2010 - 08:27:31 EST

On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 14:16 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:

> That was also my first idea, but then I thought about qos and thought
> atomic notification are necessary.
> Do you see any value in having atomic notification?
> I have the following situation before my eyes:
> Driver A gets an interrupt and needs (to service that
> interrupt) the cpu to guarantee a latency of X because the
> device is a bit icky.
> Now, in that situation, if we don't immediately (without scheduling in
> between) notify the system to be in that latency-mode the driver won't
> function properly. Is this a realistic scene?
> At the moment we only have process context notification and only 2
> listeners.
> I think providing for atomic as well as "relaxed" notification could be
> useful.
> If atomic notification is deemed unnecessary, I have no
> problems to just use schedule_work() in update request.
> Anyway, it is probably best to split this. I.e. first make
> update_request callable from atomic contexts with doing the
> schedule_work in update_request and then
> as an add on provide for constraints_objects with atomic notifications.

Well I remember where
Mark renamed things to "request" which seems to imply to me more of a
"please do this" than "I NEED IT NOW!!!!!".


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at