Re: [PATCH] Configure IDE probe delays
From: Lee Revell (rlrevell_at_joe-job.com)
Date: 07/31/04
- Previous message: David Brownell: "Re: Solving suspend-level confusion"
- Maybe in reply to: Todd Poynor: "[PATCH] Configure IDE probe delays"
- Next in thread: Lee Revell: "Re: [PATCH] Configure IDE probe delays"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:00:58 -0400
On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 07:34, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Saturday 31 July 2004 03:12, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 18:35, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Gwe, 2004-07-30 at 20:11, Todd Poynor wrote:
> > > > IDE initialization and probing makes numerous calls to sleep for 50
> > > > milliseconds while waiting for the interface to return probe status and
> > > > such.
> > >
> > > Please make it taint the kernel if you do that so we can ignore all the
> > > bug reports. That or justify it with a cite from the ATA standards ?
> >
> > Works great on my hardware. Well worth the savings in boot time.
>
> Crowd of "my old crapbox no longer boots with newer kernel, wtf?" people
> won't be happy at all.
>
> + ide_delay = simple_strtoul(s+10,NULL,0);
> + printk(" : Delay set to %dms\n", ide_delay);
> + return 1;
>
I wonder if 83 probes are really necessary. Maybe this could be
optimized a bit.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: David Brownell: "Re: Solving suspend-level confusion"
- Maybe in reply to: Todd Poynor: "[PATCH] Configure IDE probe delays"
- Next in thread: Lee Revell: "Re: [PATCH] Configure IDE probe delays"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
