Alan Cox wrote:
quoted text
>> If the hardware required an intermediate junk I/O, that would be a
>> reason to do one, but it doesn't, does it?  It requires a delay.  It's
>> written thus in all of the application notes.
>>     
>
> And the only instruction that is synchronized to the bus in question is
> an I/O instruction.
>   

This is a timing issue, isn't it?  How are we synchronising, other than
by delaying for a (bus-dependant) period?  The characteristics of each
bus are known so a number can be assigned for "one bus cycle", without
having to use the bus.



quoted text
>> Wrong again.  Of course one knows how long the delay should be.  The bus
>> speed is known. 
>>     
>
> Wrong again. ISA bus speed is neither defined precisely, nor visible in a
> system portable fashion.
>   

You say, "system portable," but I think you mean, "automatically
determined."  We don't have to define this value automatically, if
that's so hard to do.  We can use a tunable kernel-parameter.

quoted text
> I'm so glad you have nothing better to do than troll

I'm not trolling.  You know this is true because many people perceive
this to be a problem.  I'm working on fixing it.  Not all Linux problems
are solvable by diving into code, and there is anecdotal evidence to
believe this one has big performance considerations.  I don't understand
why you are opposed to even talking about it.


quoted text
> if you
> actually wrote code I'd be worried it might get into something people
> used.

Speaking of writing code: I remember working on a bluetooth Oops. 
Lacking the hardware, I went to you for advice on how to get it before
someone for testing.  You never replied.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/