* Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > ah, i understand. So i guess a stupid udelay_serialized() which 
> > takes a global spinlock would solve these sort of races? But i guess 
> > making them more likely to trigger would lead to a better kernel in 
> > the end ...
> 
> Better to just fix the drivers. I don't think that will take too many 
> days after everyone is back working.

ok.

> > doing it - but we'll do the plunge in v2.6.25 and make 
> > io_delay=udelay the default, hm? Thomas has a real 386DX system, if 
> > that doesnt break
> 
> For processors with TSC I think we should aim for 2.6.25 to do this 
> and to have the major other _p fixups done. I pity whoever does stuff 
> like the scc drivers but most of the rest isn't too bad.

ok, sounds good to me. The current io_delay= stuff for v2.6.25 is 
already shaped as a debugging/transition helper, towards complete 
elimination of _p() uses.

	Ingo