On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:17:28 +0200, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This can'be solved with a simple spinlock, as wait_event() can sleep. That's because wait_event() and its ilk make a bad API. I mentioned it many times before, and the answer by its pushers was "make the condition to be a function call and take locks inside it". That's just dumb, because it works around the silly design. The correct answer is not to use wait_event ever. > Really somebody went to some effort to find a lockless solution and > did well, he just didn't figure out of order execution units. You'd destroy > that. That somebody obviously needs a girlfriend. Lockless execution in a printer driver, that's awesome. The bottom line is, there's no excuse for using any kind of smp_mb() in USB drivers. None at all. When we have 100Gbit/s USB, then perhaps we can talk about it. -- Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
