Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 12:25:56 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: paul@isl.cf.ac.uk (Paul Richards) Cc: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, steve2@freefall.cdrom.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Colorado Jumbo 250MB ft, and FreeBSD 2.0R Message-ID: <9504051825.AA00686@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199504051437.PAA04210@isl.cf.ac.uk> from "Paul Richards" at Apr 5, 95 03:37:35 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Is this really the right thing to do? Somehow I have the feeling that > > 1 second is plenty of time for a seek operation to complete for any > > given floppy drive and the real bug is in the DELAY code. > > I'm reluctant to do this too since DELAY shouldn't have to be tweaked for > different hardware. If we can fix the delay problem before 2.1 then that's > the correct thing to do but I'll test the tape driver before we release > and if it's still not working I'll bump the delay until it does just to > hack around the problem. That DELAY is hardware dependent is an inevitable side effect of the fact that it is not implemented using real timer code. I won't argue the demerits of this (again... this time), but the hardware independence requirement of such an implementation is a calibration phase for the delay loop (see the keyboard code in "The Undocumented PC" and the Linux DELAY code). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9504051825.AA00686>