On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 19:26 -0600, Moore, Eric wrote: > On Saturday, September 22, 2007 9:39 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > Well, I'll put this in this time. However, it contains a > > whole slew of > > pointless changes like this: > > > > > > > - mdelay (10); > > > + udelay (10000); > > > > and > > > > > - mdelay(1); > > > + udelay(1000); > > > > Which is going to excite the janitors into a frenzy of replace udelay > > with mdelay patches, which I can well do without ... please don't do > > this type of change unless there's some actual reason for it. > > > > I recall the reason for this change. I found that medlay called during > interrupt context didn't work well, whereas udelay did. Oringally when > mpt_fault_reset_work was added, this code was called using timers, which > as you know, is called as part of softirq bottom half handler. Since > then, we converted mpt_fault_reset_work to being called using user > context work task, so really its a non-issue I guess. That shouldn't have happened ... if you look (include/linux/delay.h) mdelay is implemented in terms of udelay, so the behaviour should be the same. There is a technical difference, though. Because udelay is busy waiting in a calculated processor loop, it can overflow for large values (and large is defined to be anything > 1000) mdelay() is careful to call udelay multiple times to avoid the potential overflow. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
