[Intel-wired-lan] [next PATCH] igb/igbvf: don't give up

[Brown, Aaron F]

> From: Williams, Mitch A
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 8:42 AM
> To: Rustad, Mark D; Brown, Aaron F
> Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org
> Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [next PATCH] igb/igbvf: don't give up
> 
> Yes, these are called from interrupt context. So they can't sleep, no matter how tired they get.
> -Mitch

No matter HOW tired, bummer!  Cause for me, sometimes I just can't stay awake another millisecond :)

Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown at intel.com>

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rustad, Mark D
> > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 5:57 PM
> > To: Brown, Aaron F
> > Cc: Williams, Mitch A; intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org
> > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [next PATCH] igb/igbvf: don't give up
> >
> > Aaron F <aaron.f.brown at intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any reason not to use usleep_range here?
> >
> > Can the routines ever be called from any atomic context, such as an
> > interrupt or while a lock is held? If so, you can't use any form of sleep.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation