On Monday, November 22, 2010 5:27 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >>>>> Still we have the busy waiting in the TX path. Maybe you can move the >>>>> waiting before accessing the if[1] and remove the busy waiting here. >>>> I can't understand your saying. >>>> For transmitting data, calling pch_can_rw_msg_obj is mandatory. >>> Yes, but the busy wait is not needed. It should be enough to do the >>> busy-waiting _before_ accessing the if[1]. >> >> Do you mean we should create other pch_can_rw_msg_obj which doesn't have >> busy wait ? >ACK, and this non busy waiting is use in the TX path. But you add a busy >wait only function before accessing the if[1] in the TX path.
The "busy waiting" of pch_can_rw_msg_obj is for next processing accesses to Message object. If deleting this busy waiting, next processing can access to Message object, regardless previous transfer doesn't complete yet. Thus, I think, the "busy waiting" is necessary. --- Thanks, Tomoya MORINAGA OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Kleine-Budde" <[email protected]> To: "Tomoya MORINAGA" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Samuel Ortiz" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Christian Pellegrin" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Masayuki Ohtake" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>; "Wolfgang Grandegger" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v3] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add Flow control, _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
