lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [UPDATE PATCH] ieee1394/sbp2: use ssleep() instead of schedule_timeout()
From
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/

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