lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: tickle nmi watchdog whilst doing serial writes.
From
Date
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:48 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> if (up->port.flags & UPF_CONS_FLOW) {
> tmout = 1000000;
> while (--tmout &&
> - ((serial_in(up, UART_MSR) & UART_MSR_CTS) == 0))
> + ((serial_in(up, UART_MSR) & UART_MSR_CTS) == 0)) {
> udelay(1);
> + touch_nmi_watchdog();
> + }
> }
> }
>
>
> We *could* tickle it less often, but given we're busy waiting anyway
> it probably doesnt make sense to not favour the more simple approach.
> Hmm, maybe we want a cpu_relax() in there too. opinions?

udelay() includes cpu_relax() already so that is futile.

However.. this is a hack. Do we really need to do busy waiting here for
this long??


-
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: 2005-05-13 21:37    [W:0.090 / U:1.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site