[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1177505954.19745.22.camel@sebastian.intellilink.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:59:14 +0900
From: Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
To: Keith Owens <kaos@....com.au>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, horms@...ge.net.au,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...e.de, vgoyal@...ibm.com, mbligh@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] safe_apic_wait_icr_idle - i386
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 22:55 +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Fernando Luis =?ISO-8859-1?Q?V=E1zquez?= Cao (on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:13:28 +0900) wrote:
> >+static __inline__ unsigned long safe_apic_wait_icr_idle(void)
> >+{
> >+ unsigned long send_status;
> >+ int timeout;
> >+
> >+ timeout = 0;
> >+ do {
> >+ udelay(100);
> >+ send_status = apic_read(APIC_ICR) & APIC_ICR_BUSY;
> >+ } while (send_status && (timeout++ < 1000));
> >+
> >+ return send_status;
> >+}
> >+
>
> safe_apic_wait_icr_idle() as coded guarantees a minimum 100 usec delay
> before sending the IPI, this extra delay is unnecessary. Change it to
Hi Keith,
Thank you for the feedback!
> do {
> send_status = apic_read(APIC_ICR) & APIC_ICR_BUSY;
> if (send_status)
> break;
> udelay(100);
> } while (timeout++ < 1000);
Oops, that is a good point. I will resend this patch either tonight or
tomorrow morning.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists