Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PATCH: add framework for ndelay (nanoseconds) | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | 06 Feb 2003 15:53:05 +0000 |
| |
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 14:49, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote: > > Wouldn't it make more sense to call the parameter `nsecs' (or `ns')? > > There are more serious problems with this implementation: > 1) It's *very* imprecise. Even on an 1 GHz CPU and with HZ = 100 precision > is ~86 nsec. With HZ = 1000 it's almost unusable on *any* CPU.
HZ = 1000 isn't a 2.4 thing.
> As of current 2.4, there is the only user of ndelay() - ide_execute_command() > that calls ndelay(400). Why udelay(1) cannot be used instead?
Why waste 500nS every IDE command as opposed to doing the job right ? The initial ndelay() is a quick implementation. If you don't like it implement a better one, if your box isnt fast implement it as udelay.
In the 2.5 tree I also hope we can avoid the ndelay in some cases
Alan
- 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/
| |