![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 21:58, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >>Since some processors now have "busy wait delay" instructions, this >>would also make it possible to do: > > > Nobody should be using an empty busy loop. If its a short timed busy > loop then they should be using udelay, if its a long one > schedule_timeout() > Indeed. > If its polling hardware then it isnt an empty loop True indeed as well, although we should still have a busy_wait(); macro that can insert whatever hint instruction the architecture might or might not have. -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:22 [W:0.900 / U:0.120 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||