From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Apr  5 12:42:59 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA26737
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 12:42:59 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA26729
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 12:42:54 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id FAA28922; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 05:41:13 +1000
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 05:41:13 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199504051941.FAA28922@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: paul@isl.cf.ac.uk, terry@cs.weber.edu
Subject: Re: Colorado Jumbo 250MB ft, and FreeBSD 2.0R
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com,
        steve2@freefall.cdrom.com
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>That DELAY is hardware dependent is an inevitable side effect of
>the fact that it is not implemented using real timer code.

It is implemented using real timer code.  Read the code before
commenting.

>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).

The Linux DELAY code is better calibrated for short delays (unless
the machine speed is changed after calibration) but inaccurate for
long delays.

Bruce