On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 02:13:56PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote: > > On 18.04.2015, at 13:53, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As I've said several times now 1s seems far too long for a busy wait, > > the driver should fall back to something that sleeps after an initial > > busy wait (once it's clear we're over time). > Then I have misread what you wrote - I understood you wanted to avoid > having no timeout at all. No, that's correct - we shouldn't be busy waiting for ever so we need something that will terminate. > So you want something like: > * wait for 4 jiffies (which is 40ms typically) > * if we exceed that, then enable interrupts for the rest of the transfer > and let the 30s timeout handle everything else That's probably fine, though the 40ms is a bit on the long side. The 30s timeout could use pulling in too, that's going to fail very badly if anything does go wronng.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
