From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1I7456-000538-6D for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 02:47:48 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I7454-00052r-Lu for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 02:47:46 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I7453-00052e-TW for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 02:47:46 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7453-00052b-Qw for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 02:47:45 -0400 Received: from server1.secure-linux-server.com ([207.44.172.97]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I7452-0002af-VQ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 02:47:45 -0400 Received: from Inbox (87-194-181-214.bethere.co.uk [87.194.181.214]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by server1.secure-linux-server.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l678JUv08178 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 09:19:31 +0100 Message-Id: <200707070819.l678JUv08178@server1.secure-linux-server.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Amin Azez Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 07:47:44 +0100 Importance: normal X-Priority: 3 To: The development of GRUB 2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 Subject: RE: Timed wait/sleep X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:47:46 -0000 Donzt beat me for this, but grub2 sounds more like a kernel every day. I almost want to suggest nicking things from hurd. Grub2 could even be the init on a minimal hurd setup, surely? Cough Sam -----Original Message----- From: "Alex Roman" To: "The development of GRUB 2" Sent: 06/07/07 23:21 Subject: Re: Timed wait/sleep On 06 Jul 2007 17:04:19 -0500, Haudy Kazemi wrote: > On Jul 6 2007, Alex Roman wrote: > I'd avoid straight loops...with those you run into processor speed > issues...runs too fast on new CPUs, runs too slow on old hardware. Of > course I guess you could calibrate some straight loops to the RTC, and th= en > use the loops rather than polling the RTC periodically, but I don't think > the extra level of complication would provide any real benefit. Yes, I am reluctant to use loops for that reason. I could definitely do a simple read RTC in a loop until the time difference from when I started the loop is what I want it to be... I'll try to get that working, but I am open to other suggestions as well! Thanks! --=20 Alex Roman _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel