From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Petr Vandrovec" Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:13:57 +0000 Subject: Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [PATCH] radio/radio-sf16fmi: repl Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============38492180811247745==" List-Id: References: <41058881.1080406@zabbo.net> In-Reply-To: <41058881.1080406@zabbo.net> To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org --===============38492180811247745== Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 27 Jul 04 at 13:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:38:05PM +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote: > > I do not agree. Delay is here just to make sure that we do not talk > > to chip too quickly after sending previous command (it is important > > especially for get signal strength; I think that it is not needed > > at all in set frequency), and as such it does not matter whether we > > wait 100ms, 143ms, or one second. I find busy loop with mdelay > > unacceptable. > > This is msleep, not mdelay, and _not_ a busywait. Oops. Sorry for confusion then. Petr Vandrovec --===============38492180811247745== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============38492180811247745==--