On Tuesday 27 June 2006 18:12, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Michael Buesch wrote: > > So, I will submit a patch to lower the udelay(10) to udelay(1) > > and we can close the discussion? ;) > > No, that totally avoids my point. Your "otherwise idle machine" test is > probably nowhere near worst case in the field, for loops that can > potentially lock the CPU for a long time upon hardware fault. And then > there are the huge delays in specific functions that I pointed out...
wtf are you requesting from me? 1) I proved you that the loop does only spin _once_ or even _less_. 2) If the hardware is faulty, the user must replace it. Because, if the hardware is faulty, it can crash the whole machine anyway, obviously. 3) There is no "huge delay". I proved it with my logs. -> No CPU hog => Nothing to fix. -- Greetings Michael. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
