BUG: pc_keyb.c

Which writes are you thinking of?

There are four of them. Any one in particular?

(1) The first is

static void kb_wait(void) {
	do {
		status = handle_kbd_event();
		if (! (status & KBD_STAT_IBF))
			return;
		mdelay(1);
	} ...
}

Here handle_kbd_event() does kbd_read_status() which does inb(KBD_STATUS_REG).
So, the mdelay(1) separates reads of the status register.

(2) The second is (in send_data, waiting for an ack):

	for (;;) {
		if (acknowledge)
			return 1;
		mdelay(1);
	}

Here the delay seems completely arbitrary.

(3) The third is in kbd_wait_for_input():

	do {
		int retval = kbd_read_data();
		if (retval >= 0)
			return retval;
		mdelay(1);
	}

Here kbd_read_data() does kbd_read_status().
Again the mdelay(1) separates reads of the status register.

(4) The last is in detect_auxiliary_port() which is __init and hence probably irrelevant.

If it is really necessary to have mdelay(1) or even mdelay(2), then it seems to me that this implies that there is a minimum delay between two reads of the status register.
But the present code does not guarantee such a delay at all. For example, kbd_write_cmd() does

	kb_wait();
	outb(...);
	kb_wait();

where the second kb_wait reads the status very quickly after the first.

So, I am inclined to think that the present mdelay(1) is just random nonsense. It does not guarantee anything at all. If some delay is required somewhere then we must introduce a mechanism that enforces the delay.

Andries