Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Oct 1999 23:38:25 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: schedule_timeout() semantics/usage? |
| |
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, David Hinds wrote:
> do { > current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; > timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout); > } while (timeout); > current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
Yes, that will work fine and it's the right thing to do, except the fact you don't care about signals in the above fragment and so you should use TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE instead (it will avoid some not necessary schedule()).
Andrea
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |