On 04/05/2013 04:56 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Lars, > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Since we sleep inside the protected section we need to use a mutex. > > Ah, good point. > >> It's not the timeout case I'm worried about, but the case where the transfer >> is interrupted by the user. Even though it is rather unlikely for the >> problem to occur we should still try to avoid it, this is one of these >> annoying heisenbugs that happen once in a while and nobody is able to >> reproduce them. > > Yes, of course. Then we can also get extra confidence that the reset > logic works well by stressing out this case... :) > > This makes me think, though. Given how fast we expect the ADC > transaction to finish, would there be any benefit to making the wait > non-interruptible and then shortening the timeout a whole lot. If we > shortened to 1ms then we're really not "non-interruptible" for very > long and there's less chance of subtle bugs in the way that reset > works. Yes, that could also work. - Lars -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
