On Tuesday 27 June 2006 18:12, Jeff Garzik wrote:

Michael Buesch wrote:

quoted

So, I will submit a patch to lower the udelay(10) to udelay(1)
and we can close the discussion? ;)

No, that totally avoids my point.  Your "otherwise idle machine" test is 
probably nowhere near worst case in the field, for loops that can 
potentially lock the CPU for a long time upon hardware fault.  And then 
there are the huge delays in specific functions that I pointed out...

wtf are you requesting from me?
1) I proved you that the loop does only spin _once_ or even _less_.
2) If the hardware is faulty, the user must replace it.
   Because, if the hardware is faulty, it can crash the whole
   machine anyway, obviously.

3) There is no "huge delay". I proved it with my logs.
   -> No CPU hog => Nothing to fix.

-- 
Greetings Michael.