Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:01:21 +0100 | Subject | Re: [UPDATE PATCH] ieee1394/sbp2: use ssleep() instead of schedule_timeout() | From | Stefan Richter <> |
| |
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > Description: Use ssleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee > the task > delays as expected. The existing code should not really need to run in > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, as there is no check for signals (or even an > early return > value whatsoever). ssleep() takes care of these issues.
> --- 2.6.10-v/drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c 2004-12-24 13:34:00.000000000 > -0800 > +++ 2.6.10/drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c 2005-01-05 14:23:05.000000000 -0800 > @@ -902,8 +902,7 @@ alloc_fail: > * connected to the sbp2 device being removed. That host would > * have a certain amount of time to relogin before the sbp2 device > * allows someone else to login instead. One second makes sense. */ > - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > - schedule_timeout(HZ); > + ssleep(1);
Maybe the current code is _deliberately_ accepting interruption by signals but trying to complete sbp2_probe() anyway. However it seems more plausible to me to abort the device probe, for example like this: if (msleep_interruptible(1000)) { sbp2_remove_device(scsi_id); return -EINTR; } Anyway, signal handling does not appear to be critical there. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=-= ---= -=--= http://arcgraph.de/sr/
- 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/
| |