From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Subject: Re: [PATCH] Poll-based IDE driver Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:44:58 +0530 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20031008174458.A32517@in.ibm.com> References: <20030917144120.A11425@in.ibm.com> <1063806900.12279.47.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20031008151357.A31976@in.ibm.com> <20031008115051.GD705@redhat.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:60801 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261397AbTJHMHL (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:07:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031008115051.GD705@redhat.com>; from davej@redhat.com on Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 12:50:51PM +0100 List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Jones , Alan Cox , lkcd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 12:50:51PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote: > > Why not just use udelay() ? The above code cannot possibly do > the right thing on all processors. Since my code is supposed to run when system is crashing, I would like to avoid calling any function in the kernel as far as possible, since the kernel and its data structures may be in a inconsistent state and/or corrupted. I do realize that the above code does not provide accurate delay and may not work on all platforms. In that direction I was considering using the loops_per_jiffy variable which may provide more accurate/platform-independent delay (?) .. -- Thanks and Regards, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Labs, Bangalore, INDIA - 560033