Re: [patch] fix delay_tsc (was Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1))

> I'm running a system with this applied now.  I think there are still
> problems if someone uses huge delays, though.  What keeps someone from
> trying to delay for > 2^31 cycles?

You shouldn't. The caller has a compile time check for that. And if you pass 
in dynamic values you get what you deserve.

-Andi
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [patch] fix delay_tsc (was Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1))
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] KABI example conversion and cleanup
• Next by Date: Re: PI patch against 2.6.16-rt9
• Previous by thread: [patch] fix delay_tsc (was Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1))
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] fix delay_tsc (was Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]