Messages in this thread | | | Subject | schedule_timeout() sematics | Date | Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:26:17 -0700 | From | Ken Pizzini <> |
| |
I just fixed a bug in my sonycd535.c driver where I neglected to set current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE before I called schedule_timeout(). While fixing this I was led to wonder: wouldn't it make sense for schedule_timeout() to set TASK_INTERRUPIBLE itself? I'm failing to think of a case where this would not be desirable (but then again, my imagination isn't working as well as it should be right now).
FWIW: in a quick pass through the drivers/ tree there were only a few (the lp and some sound drivers) which did not obviously set current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE just before the call to schedule_timeout().
On a related note, while doing the above search, my eye caught this questionable code fragment in drivers/char/dz.c (at line 1096 in the 2.2.11 version of the source): schedule_timeout(jiffies + info->close_delay); Surely this reference to "jiffies" is bogus?
--Ken Pizzini
- 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/
| |