On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:48 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> if (up->port.flags & UPF_CONS_FLOW) {
> tmout = 1000000;
> while (--tmout &&
> - ((serial_in(up, UART_MSR) & UART_MSR_CTS) == 0))
> + ((serial_in(up, UART_MSR) & UART_MSR_CTS) == 0)) {
> udelay(1);
> + touch_nmi_watchdog();
> + }
> }
> }
>
>
> We *could* tickle it less often, but given we're busy waiting anyway
> it probably doesnt make sense to not favour the more simple approach.
> Hmm, maybe we want a cpu_relax() in there too. opinions?
udelay() includes cpu_relax() already so that is futile.
However.. this is a hack. Do we really need to do busy waiting here for
this long??
-
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]
