On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 02:11:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Russell King <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Rejected-by: Russell King 8)
> >
> > The reason is that now we're unable to find out if anyone's doing
> > udelay(100000000000000000) which breaks on most architectures.
> >
> > There are a number of compile-time checks that your patch has removed
> > which catch such things, and as such your patch is not acceptable.
> > Some architectures have a lower threshold of acceptability for the
> > maximum udelay value, so it's absolutely necessary to keep this.
>
> I don't recall seeing anyone trigger the check, and it hardly seems worth
> adding a "few kb" to vmlinux for it?
Maybe we can have both - would the space saving be achieved by just moving
mdelay and ssleep out of linux/delay.h and not touching asm-i386/delay.h?
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
