Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drivers/mmc/mmc.c: Replacing yield() with a better alternative | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:58:11 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 18:15 +0530, Amol Lad wrote: > In 2.6, the semantics of calling yield() changed from "sleep for a > bit" to "I really don't want to run for a while". This matches POSIX > better, but there's a lot of drivers still using yield() when they mean > cond_resched(), schedule() or even schedule_timeout(). > > For this driver cond_resched() seems to be a better > alternative >
are you sure?
> Tested compile only > > Signed-off-by: Amol Lad <amol@verismonetworks.com> > --- > diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.19-rc1-orig/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.19-rc1-orig/drivers/mmc/mmc.c linux-2.6.19-rc1/drivers/mmc/mmc.c > --- linux-2.6.19-rc1-orig/drivers/mmc/mmc.c 2006-10-05 14:00:46.000000000 +0530 > +++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/drivers/mmc/mmc.c 2006-10-11 17:57:02.000000000 +0530 > @@ -454,7 +454,7 @@ static void mmc_deselect_cards(struct mm > static inline void mmc_delay(unsigned int ms) > { > if (ms < HZ / 1000) { > - yield(); > + cond_resched(); > mdelay(ms);
this probably wants msleep(), especially with hrtimers comming up; there the sleeps are always exact...
- 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/
| |