> That's right, and I fully agree with that change. To me, going back
> to allowing spin locks is a regression because it adds a new source of
> scheduling latency.
I think that the change was not about reducing scheduling
latency. Rather, the idea was simply to allow mdio bus drivers that
sleep.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:43:08AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Richard Cochran
>> wrote:
>> > In order to support hardware time stamping from a PHY, it is necessary to
>> > read from the PHY while runni
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:43:08AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Richard Cochran
> wrote:
> > In order to support hardware time stamping from a PHY, it is necessary to
> > read from the PHY while running in_interrupt(). This patch allows a mii
> > bus to operate in
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> In order to support hardware time stamping from a PHY, it is necessary to
> read from the PHY while running in_interrupt(). This patch allows a mii
> bus to operate in an atomic context. An mii_bus driver may declare itself
> capable for t
In order to support hardware time stamping from a PHY, it is necessary to
read from the PHY while running in_interrupt(). This patch allows a mii
bus to operate in an atomic context. An mii_bus driver may declare itself
capable for this mode. Drivers which do not do this will remain with the
defaul
