Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:08:00 -0800 | From | Nishanth Aravamudan <> | Subject | [UPDATE PATCH] drivers/dmapool: use TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE instead of TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE |
| |
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:47:03PM +0100, Domen Puncer wrote: > Patchset of 171 patches is at http://coderock.org/kj/2.6.10-bk13-kj/ > > Quick patch summary: about 30 new, 30 merged, 30 dropped. > Seems like most external trees are merged in -linus, so i'll start > (re)sending old patches.
<snip>
> msleep_interruptible-drivers_base_dmapool.patch
Please replace with the following patch. msleep_interruptible() is not appropriate for this delay, as the waitqueue events will be missed. TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE should be used instead of TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, though, as signals are not checked for.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
--- 2.6.10-v/drivers/base/dmapool.c 2004-12-24 13:35:28.000000000 -0800 +++ 2.6.10/drivers/base/dmapool.c 2005-01-10 12:05:08.000000000 -0800 @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ restart: if (mem_flags & __GFP_WAIT) { DECLARE_WAITQUEUE (wait, current); - current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); add_wait_queue (&pool->waitq, &wait); spin_unlock_irqrestore (&pool->lock, flags); - 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/
| |