On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote:
> I was under the impression that we were only talking about timeouts, and > that the common case was significantly shorter than that. I think one of the concerns that Alan Cox raised is that the existence of this macro would encourage people to spin for long durations. > If it's atomic because preemption was disabled, yes -- but even a rare > extended spin in such a context would be bad for hard realtime. If > interrupts are disabled, or the code is executing from a timer interrupt (or > possibly other interrupts depending on the hardware and its priority > scheme), no. So in that case, I can't rely on jiffies. I guess get_cycle() is my only choice. The problem is that there is no num_cycles_per_usec(). -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev