Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:12:11 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: pialkin@abel.pdmi.ras.ru, ache@nagual.ru, spblug@tsctube.spb.su, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ATAPI patch Message-ID: <199609131912.MAA09402@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <4695.842612893@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Sep 13, 96 04:08:13 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Ugh. Got a point. > > Yeah - i think it is possible to stay DELAYs only in atapi_probe() > > - all others are not so neccesary. > > Erm, this is engineering here, no one will hurt you for being more > precise. :-) Can you perhaps do some testing and verify this by more > scientific methods? So if you have 16 different delays, it should only take you 2^16 or 65536 reboots (per ATAPI device per IDE controller) to determine. Or 2^16 - 2^15 + 2^14 - 2^13 ... if you btree your testing... 8^). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- 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?199609131912.MAA09402>