[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.3.46 Boot Failure

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

    [ ... ]

    > >glad to hear DEC/COMPAQ ingenieers about the status of the
    > >__delay()/__udelay() stuff for alpha in Linuxes. For now, Pamela has to
    > There's just an attempt to fix it. It's a patch from Jay Estabrook, I have
    > uploaded it here but I don't need it with my hardware:
    > ftp://ftp.*
    > Maybe Jay can add some comment about this. The patch is strightforward, it
    > make sure that the udelay code is allocated in a misaligned address.

    I will add my comments too: ;-)

    Why sticking with inlining for this stuff? Getting rid of inlining does
    insure this stuff be aligned in everything the same way and would likely
    fix the problem forever. Fixing it in memory would not affect precision
    for micro-second even on early alpha machines, in my opinion, given clock
    frequencies used on alpha since years.

    The udelay stuff is designed to waste deterministic amounts of time and
    some minimal precision requirement should be specified. Otherwise it is
    just usable at nothing good.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.026 / U:3.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site