On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 09:34 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 08:08:35AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 09:48 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, that might be the right way to go. If you want to jump into the > > > driver, feel quite free, but I don't think you need to go into too much > > > detail with it. Your overall behavior analysis is right on the mark > > > already. > > > > I think we could just remove the trylock from the interrupt case, and > > always force the wake_up_interruptible(&priv->thr_wait) case. It looks > > like the trylocking is just an optimization to save a wakeup .. > > 'just'? I think you'd see severe performance reductions if you had to > do a wakeup for every interrupt. I'd think we would have to know more about how it works before we could say that for certain, but you might be right .. That may be an unlikely case tho.. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
