On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 13:21 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thursday 30 June 2005 12:19, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > It removes that check from x86 - other architectures retain it.
> > >
> > >
> For users, _any_ value, however large, will work for
> any delay function.
that's not desired though. Desired is to limit udelay() to say 2000 or
so. And force anything above that to go via mdelay() (just to make it
stand out as broken code ;)
Over time we also want to phase out mdelay of course...
-
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]
