Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:40:20 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: schedule_timeout() |
| |
Lahti Oy wrote: > > Why does schedule_timeout() take a signed long as an argument and then check > for possible negative values? Wouldn't it be better to just take an unsigned > long as argument, thus eliminating all dumb checks in the code?
Because someone may do:
schedule_timeout(when_i_want_to_wake - jiffies);
and if the current time happens to be _after_ when_i_want_to_wake, we want schedule_timeout to cope with that and do the right thing.
> Another issue I found concerns setting current task state to TASK_RUNNING > after calling schedule_timeout(). This seems to be done in many parts of the > kernel, though Kernel-API documentations found from kernelnewbies.org seem > to claim that task state is guaranteed to be TASK_RUNNING after > schedule_timeout() returns. Is the documentation faulty or does the kernel > have obsoleted code?
The documentation is correct. - 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/
| |