On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 22:11 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote: > So I implemented udelay and ndelay through a single paravirt_op, > const_udelay, instead of having either two separate paravirt-ops for > udelay or ndelay, or a redundant const_udelay paravirt_op. Anybody have > any objection to reworking the patch this way? Seems saner, but I'm not sure why x86 has an I/O delay separate from udelay to start with? Comments: > +#if defined(CONFIG_PARAVIRT) && !defined(USE_REAL_IO) > +#include <asm/paravirt.h> > +#else USE_REAL_IO? Is this defined anywhere? Or just future-proofing? Rusty. -- Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law
