On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:47:21PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 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...
The joystick drivers will (sadly) need mdelay forever,
due to hardware crappines.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |