From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 06:54:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 06:54:22 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:61947 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 06:54:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] Add i8253 spinlocks where needed. From: Alan Cox To: Vojtech Pavlik Cc: Manik Raina , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020527121001.B26811@ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 27 May 2002 12:56:20 +0100 Message-Id: <1022500580.11859.252.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 11:10, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > Well, probably yes, but still hd.c is a glacial relict, a driver nobody > (almost - it's for non-IDE "two ribbon" AT harddrives) uses. So this > driver is probably not enough justification for a global (as in all > archs) spinlock being added. It only uses the timer in the case that HD_DELAY > 0. This code is ultimately used for timing functions. A better approach would be to remove the use of the timer chip from the file entirely and use the perfectly adequate udelay() function instead. That would also conveniently make it do cpu_relax properly improving the performance of your ancient IDE controller when plugged into hyperthreading pentium IV 8) Alan