[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071230170826.GB16502@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:08:26 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>, dpreed@...d.com,
Islam Amer <pharon@...il.com>, hpa@...or.com,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > ah, i understand. So i guess a stupid udelay_serialized() which
> > takes a global spinlock would solve these sort of races? But i guess
> > making them more likely to trigger would lead to a better kernel in
> > the end ...
>
> Better to just fix the drivers. I don't think that will take too many
> days after everyone is back working.
ok.
> > doing it - but we'll do the plunge in v2.6.25 and make
> > io_delay=udelay the default, hm? Thomas has a real 386DX system, if
> > that doesnt break
>
> For processors with TSC I think we should aim for 2.6.25 to do this
> and to have the major other _p fixups done. I pity whoever does stuff
> like the scc drivers but most of the rest isn't too bad.
ok, sounds good to me. The current io_delay= stuff for v2.6.25 is
already shaped as a debugging/transition helper, towards complete
elimination of _p() uses.
Ingo
--
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