From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stall semantics Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:28:48 +0100 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20031003202848.GX24824@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Moore, Robert" Cc: Nate Lawson , Matthew Wilcox , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 01:23:29PM -0700, Moore, Robert wrote: > > Here's what the MS interpreter does for Stall(n); > > 1) If n <= 255 (MAX_BYTE), perform the stall. > 2) If n > 255, throw an error and abort the control method. > > In this case, I suggest that we simply duplicate the MS behavior, it > seems like a good compromise and also provides ACPI CA with exact > compatibility. Sounds good to me (though personally, I'd trim it down to 200ms). -- "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf