* ide_delay_50ms question
@ 2001-09-03 7:52 Jani Monoses
2001-09-03 9:28 ` David Woodhouse
2001-09-03 10:34 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jani Monoses @ 2001-09-03 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hi
could anybody tell me why is the mdelay(50) solution better than the
schedule_timeout(HZ/20) in ide_delay_50ms.I suppose because it is bootime
and there is nothing to schedule.
But then the condition should also extend to CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDECS_MODULE
as well, because when I insert an IDE compactflash card things stop for a
second or so nad I use a modular driver.
And I don't know about removable harddrives but isn't the schedule_timeout
solution better for them as well?
void ide_delay_50ms (void)
{
#ifndef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDECS
mdelay(50);
#else
__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule_timeout(HZ/20);
#endif /* CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDECS */
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: ide_delay_50ms question
2001-09-03 7:52 ide_delay_50ms question Jani Monoses
@ 2001-09-03 9:28 ` David Woodhouse
2001-09-03 10:34 ` Alan Cox
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2001-09-03 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jani Monoses; +Cc: linux-kernel
jani@astechnix.ro said:
> But then the condition should also extend to CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDECS_MODUL
> E as well, because when I insert an IDE compactflash card things stop
> for a second or so nad I use a modular driver.
Urgh. Please don't make in-kernel code depend on CONFIG_*_MODULE any more
than it already does. It's disgusting.
Why can't we just schedule unconditionally?
--
dwmw2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: ide_delay_50ms question
2001-09-03 7:52 ide_delay_50ms question Jani Monoses
2001-09-03 9:28 ` David Woodhouse
@ 2001-09-03 10:34 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-03 11:44 ` Andrzej Krzysztofowicz
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-09-03 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jani Monoses; +Cc: linux-kernel
> as well, because when I insert an IDE compactflash card things stop for a
> second or so nad I use a modular driver.
> And I don't know about removable harddrives but isn't the schedule_timeout
> solution better for them as well?
Some of the current drivers call it with interrupts disabled. This is one of
the things that will have to wait until 2.5 is released to really address
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: ide_delay_50ms question
2001-09-03 10:34 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-09-03 11:44 ` Andrzej Krzysztofowicz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrzej Krzysztofowicz @ 2001-09-03 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Jani Monoses, linux-kernel
"Alan Cox wrote:"
> > as well, because when I insert an IDE compactflash card things stop for a
> > second or so nad I use a modular driver.
> > And I don't know about removable harddrives but isn't the schedule_timeout
> > solution better for them as well?
>
> Some of the current drivers call it with interrupts disabled. This is one of
> the things that will have to wait until 2.5 is released to really address
AFAIR it (interrupts disabled) is necessary for old pre-IDE 16-bit
controllers.
Andrzej
--
=======================================================================
Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz ankry@mif.pg.gda.pl
phone (48)(58) 347 14 61
Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math., Technical University of Gdansk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-09-03 11:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-09-03 7:52 ide_delay_50ms question Jani Monoses
2001-09-03 9:28 ` David Woodhouse
2001-09-03 10:34 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-03 11:44 ` Andrzej Krzysztofowicz
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.