lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [UPDATE PATCH] ieee1394/sbp2: use ssleep() instead of schedule_timeout()
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:01:21AM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> 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;
> }

You might be right, but I'd like to get Ben's input on this, as I honeslty am
unsure. To be fair, I am trying to audit all usage of schedule_timeout() and the
semantic interpretation (to me) of using TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE is that you wish to
sleep a certain amount of time, but also are prepared for an early return on
either signals or wait-queue events. msleep_interruptible() cleanly removes this
second issue, but still requires the caller to respond appropriately if there is
a return value. Hence, I like your change. I think it makes the most sense.
Since I didn't/don't know how the device works, I was not able to make the
change myself. Thanks for your input!

> Anyway, signal handling does not appear to be critical there.

Just out of curiousity, doesn't that run the risk, though, of
signal_pending(current) being true for quite a bit of time following the
timeout?

Thanks,
Nish
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans