At Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:43:19 +0100 (BST), Chris Rankin wrote: > > > > > another point: doesn't the busy-loop in > > > > host_read/write_ctrl_unsafe > > > > need udelay() or something to produce a certain > > > > delay length? > > > > otherwise the timeout is very dependent on a > > > > machine. > > > > > > Yes, possibly. Provided udelay() isn't deprecated > > and > > > doesn't schedule or anything. > > > > no and no. it's a simply busy delay for the given > > time length > > with _relatively_ good accuracy (up to 1ms). > > > > > I tested this driver on > > > a P120 - not exactly a speed daemon... ;-)! > > > > ah, then the current driver will fail definitely on > > 2GHz P4 ;) > > Yeah, if you can find one with an ISA slot free... > ;-). Anyway, I'll put that udelay() in then; udelay(1) > will probably be enough.
then please don't use HZ for timeout value, since HZ can be different from 100 on non-i386 architectures (and even on i386 on 2.5). > I'll also remove that #error > if there's no OSS emulation, and I don't think any > action is needed for the verify_area() calls. i forgot to mention - please add #include <linux/delay.h> if you use udelay() or mdelay(). and leave verify_area() as you like. as said, checking the return value from copy_from/to_user() is the general way, but of course it's not the only way and everybody may write his code :) Takashi ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
