On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 15:52 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Three comments: > > 1) Since you may have to deal with the SMP case, don't you need to add > wmb() or use atomic bit tests?
I don't think there will be any nasty races between bnx2_reset_task() and bnx2_close(). If they are racing, the reset task will see that netif_running() is zero and will just return. > > 2) Would prefer to follow the generic net stack and other areas of the > kernel, for the last piece of quoted code. net stack used to loop on > schedule_timeout(1) in dev_close() [net/core/dev.c], which has now been > updated to loop on msleep(1). As the code comment there notes, we're > not in a hurry here. > I see other drivers doing yield() also. But if you prefer, I can change it to msleep(). > 3) Once bnx2 is fixed, any chance you could be talked into proposing > patches for the other drivers with this problem? If you don't have > access to hardware to test, that's not a big deal. Just note that in > the patch description. Yeah, I think so. It may take a while to get to it though. > > Otherwise, patch is OK. > > Jeff > > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
