Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:57:40 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@freebsd-services.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/digi digi.c Message-ID: <200204101157.g3ABveOF052165@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> of "Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:45:13 %2B1000." <20020410204138.C7535-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Brian Somers wrote:
>
> > brian 2002/04/09 20:13:28 PDT
> >
> > Modified files:
> > sys/dev/digi digi.c
> > Log:
> > Add a digi_delay() function and use it instead of tsleep() when polling
> > the card for command completion.
> >
> > digi_delay() uses either tsleep() or DELAY() depending on the value of
> > ``cold''.
> >
> > Pointed in the right direction by: jhb
>
> Maybe tsleep() should sleep when cold if given a timeout. This is not quite
> right, since the semantics of the timeout arg is to give a maximum wait,
> not a delay, but it is better than ...
Well, I guess I'm abusing tsleep() - using it as a DELAY() that
doesn't spin.... but I don't know of anything more suitable.
> >
> > Revision Changes Path
> > 1.25 +14 -5 src/sys/dev/digi/digi.c
>
> N * (+14 -5) in N drivers. All drivers that support dynamic loading need
> something like this, since busy-waiting on running systems is unacceptable.
> Not that I will ever want to use this misfeature.
Perhaps we just need to rename digi_delay() to delay() and put it
somewhere more interesting ?
> Bruce
--
Brian <brian@freebsd-services.com> <brian@Awfulhak.org>
http://www.freebsd-services.com/ <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200204101157.g3ABveOF052165>