Benjamin,
> I'd rather
> change the test from >= to > (which in the old could would mean
> changing the while (... < 0 to <= 0) as I see no reason to trigger
> a new decrementer interrupt in ... 0 ticks !
I think I did not change the previous 'while' logic.
It said:
while ( diff < 0 )
Now it says:
while ( 1 ) {
if ( diff >= 0 )
break;
Previously, the while could be left for a next_dec of 0.
But I agree with you: it could be changed.
Why leaving the loop just to set the decrementer to 0!?
--------------------------------------------
Jean-Denis Boyer, B.Eng., System Architect
Mediatrix Telecom Inc.
4229 Garlock Street
Sherbrooke (Qu?bec)
J1L 2C8 CANADA
(819)829-8749 x241
--------------------------------------------
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
