From: Felipe Balbi <felipe.ba...@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:39:21 +0200
> > Hi, > > David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: >> From: Felipe Balbi <felipe.ba...@linux.intel.com> >> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 09:04:54 +0200 >> >>> What Dave Miller is saying is that it's ALWAYS a bug to delay >>> completion of SKBs. The only thing you're doing with chipidea is >>> delaying interrupt by up to 125us; which is still a bug from the >>> point of view of the networking layer, but it's more difficult to >>> perceive any problems because of the short time where interrupt is >>> delayed. >> >> I didn't say delaying was illegal. >> >> I said that the SKB free must occur in a reasonable, finite, amount of >> time. > > "reasonable" is rather subjective. Completions are, of course, > finite. It just means that once a transfer completes *and* has interrupt > enabled, then several other SKBs will be completed along with it. > > That doesn't mean *all* SKBs completed at the same time, it means once > we get an interrupt, we give back all previous ones, but we don't know > exactly when they completed. I think you know what I was trying to say which is that some event is guaranteed to release the SKBs on some order of magnitude less than say half a second. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
