On So 21-01-06 11:53:06, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> This is an update to the following patch current found in the -mm
> tree:
>
> backup-timer-for-uarts-that-lose-interrupts-take-3.patch
>
> The only change is that the spinlocks around 8250_handle_port() have
> been removed to be consistent with changes to upstream. Original submit
> message below. Thanks
is this going to cause increased timer activity on non-buggy systems?
> + if (is_real_interrupt(up->port.irq))
> + serial_out(up, UART_IER, ier);
> +
> + timeout = timeout > 6 ? (timeout / 2 - 2) : 1;
Eh? What units is timeout in, anyway?
> + mod_timer(&up->timer, jiffies + (timeout * 100));
Does this work in HZ!=100 situations?
> + /* Wait up to 1s for flow control if necessary */
> + if (up->port.flags & UPF_CONS_FLOW) {
> + tmout = 1000000;
> + while (--tmout &&
> + ((serial_in(up, UART_MSR) & UART_MSR_CTS) == 0))
> + udelay(1);
Could you s/tmout/timeout/ while you are modifying this?
> + if (iir & UART_IIR_NO_INT) {
> + unsigned int timeout = up->port.timeout;
> +
> + pr_debug("ttyS%d - using backup timer\n", port->line);
> + timeout = timeout > 6 ? (timeout / 2 - 2) : 1;
Same strange computation, again. Inline function?
Pavel
--
Thanks, Sharp!
-
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]
