From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.11-rc2 12/29] ide: add ide_hwgroup_t.polling Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 01:42:18 +0100 Message-ID: <58cb370e05020216427757693b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050202024017.GA621@htj.dyndns.org> <20050202025538.GM621@htj.dyndns.org> Reply-To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.199]:12134 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262361AbVBCAmS (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2005 19:42:18 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 67so168504wri for ; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:42:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20050202025538.GM621@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:55:38 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > > 12_ide_hwgroup_t_polling.patch > > > > ide_hwgroup_t.polling field added. 0 in poll_timeout field > > used to indicate inactive polling but because 0 is a valid > > jiffy value, though slim, there's a chance that something > > weird can happen. Is there really a possibility of something weird? I'm not claiming that I like this way of coding but poll_timeout is assigned either to '0' or to 'jiffies + WAIT_WORSTCASE'. Bartlomiej