Am Samstag, 15. Mai 2004 00:11 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Fri, 14 May 2004, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > In that case I prefer a clean cut. Here it is. And yes, the ifdef is ugly,
> > but the helper functions in that area of the kernel are currently in flux.
>
> Looks good to me, apart from the #ifdef-ed conversion. That can always
> be fixed later.
>
> So there were no calls of wait_ms() made in_interrupt()? I guess that's
> not surprising; busy-waiting is almost never a good idea.
I hope so. I traced back to the first blocking call. If that was a bug,
there should be busy waiting.
Ready for application?
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband
Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest
6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
