On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:27:05 +0200 Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/979935 where > Mark renamed things to "request" which seems to imply to me more of a > "please do this" than "I NEED IT NOW!!!!!". > > johannes Yes. I just posted a version which uses schedule_work(). Just FYI, James has also posted his version which uses either a blocking or an atomic notifier chain. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/996813 Cheers, Flo -- 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
