[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D2FA305.2030808@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:12:37 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Add safe_udelay() and safe_msleep()
On 01/13/2011 04:44 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 04:31:04PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> there are some udelay() in drivers/usb/early/ehci-dbgp.c
>>
>> that is for early USB debug port console support.
>>
>> We should replace them with early version udelay()
>
> Again, I fail to see why. They work fine today, right?
did not test that for a while.
from code review, we should not use udelay() that early.
in arch/x86/lib/delay.c we have
inline void __const_udelay(unsigned long xloops)
{
int d0;
xloops *= 4;
asm("mull %%edx"
:"=d" (xloops), "=&a" (d0)
:"1" (xloops), "0"
(this_cpu_read(cpu_info.loops_per_jiffy) * (HZ/4)));
__delay(++xloops);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__const_udelay);
that percpu cpu_info.loops_per_jiffy only have value after smp_prepare_cpus() is called.
>
> You _really_ need to prove what you are trying to do here, with lots of
> details and descriptions of what the problem is, as it's getting a bit
> annoying...
sorry for that.
Yinghai
--
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