Re: [irda-users] [PATCH] stir4200 runtime bug fixes

[Stephen H. <she...@os...>]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:08:56 -0500
John K Luebs <jk...@lu...> wrote:

> Patch has two bug fixes for the Sigmatel stir4200 driver
> - Prevent 36 minutes of no receive activity from causing large jiffie
>   sleep in turnaround_delay
> - Ignore skb speed request if it's -1
> 
> Signed-off-by: John K. Luebs <jk...@lu...>
> 
> --- linux-2.6.11-rc2/drivers/net/irda/stir4200.c.orig	2005-01-21 20:47:31.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.11-rc2/drivers/net/irda/stir4200.c	2005-01-31 19:14:38.000000000 -0500
> @@ -671,7 +671,8 @@ static void turnaround_delay(const struc
>  		return;
>  
>  	do_gettimeofday(&now);
> -	us -= (now.tv_sec - stir->rx_time.tv_sec) * USEC_PER_SEC;
> +	if (now.tv_sec - stir->rx_time.tv_sec > 0)
> +		us -= USEC_PER_SEC;
>  	us -= now.tv_usec - stir->rx_time.tv_usec;
>  	if (us < 10)
>  		return;

Doesn't do >1 sec case properly, if it matters?
Also not sure whether my original code using gettimeofday is really that great an idea,
is it worth the effort to do turnaround times < 1ms?

> @@ -787,7 +788,7 @@ static int stir_transmit_thread(void *ar
>  				stir_send(stir, skb);
>  			dev_kfree_skb(skb);
>  
> -			if (stir->speed != new_speed) {
> +			if ((new_speed != -1) && (stir->speed != new_speed)) {
>  				if (fifo_txwait(stir, -1) ||
>  				    change_speed(stir, new_speed))
>  					break;
>

How is new_speed of -1 getting in anyway?  why did it get this far...
should it just be checked when speed change is detected?