paride: replace schedule_timeout() with
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 paride: replace schedule_timeout() with
I would appreciate any comments from the janitors list. This is one (of many) cases where I made a decision about replacing
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);schedule_timeout(some_time);
with
msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(some_time));
msleep() is not exactly the same as the previous code, but I only did this replacement where I thought long delays were *desired*. If this is not the case here, then just disregard this patch.
Thanks,
Nish
Applys-to: 2.6.7
Description: Uses msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task delays at least the desired time amount.
drivers/block/paride/pcd.c +3 -9
@@ -534,12 +534,6 @@ static int pcd_tray_move(struct cdrom_de position ? "eject" : "close tray"); } -static void pcd_sleep (int cs) -{ - current->state =TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE ; -schedule_timeout (cs); -} -static int pcd_reset (struct pcd_unit *cd) {int i, k, flg;
@@ -549,11 +543,11 @@ static int pcd_reset(struct pcd_unit *cdwrite_reg (cd,6 ,0xa0 +0x10 * cd->drive);write_reg (cd,7 ,8 ); -pcd_sleep (20 *HZ /1000 );/* delay a bit */ +msleep (20 ); k =0 ;while ((k++ <PCD_RESET_TMO ) && (status_reg (cd) &IDE_BUSY )) -pcd_sleep (HZ /10 ); +msleep (100 ); flg =1 ;for (i =0 ; i <5 ; i++)
@@ -592,7 +586,7 @@ static int pcd_ready_wait(struct pcd_uniif (!(((p &0xffff ) ==0x0402 ) || ((p &0xff ) ==6 )))return p; k++; -pcd_sleep (HZ ); +msleep (1000 ); }return 0x000020 ;/* timeout */ }
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
PATCH 1/1 paride: replace schedule_timeout() with
I would appreciate any comments from the janitors list. This is one (of many) cases where I made a decision about replacing
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);schedule_timeout(some_time);
with
msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(some_time));
msleep() is not exactly the same as the previous code, but I only did this replacement where I thought long delays were *desired*. If this is not the case here, then just disregard this patch.
Thanks,
Nish
Applys-to: 2.6.7
Description: Uses msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task delays at least the desired time amount.
drivers/block/paride/pf.c +2 -8
@@ -526,12 +526,6 @@ static void pf_eject(struct pf_unit *pf)#define PF_RESET_TMO 30/* in tenths of a second */ -static void pf_sleep (int cs) -{ - current->state =TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE ; -schedule_timeout (cs); -} -/* the ATAPI standard actually specifies the contents of all 7 registers after a reset, but the specification is ambiguous concerning the last two bytes, and different drives interpret the standard differently.
@@ -546,11 +540,11 @@ static int pf_reset(struct pf_unit *pf)write_reg (pf,6 ,0xa0 +0x10 *pf->drive);write_reg (pf,7 ,8 ); -pf_sleep (20 *HZ /1000 ); +msleep (20 ); k =0 ;while ((k++ <PF_RESET_TMO ) && (status_reg (pf) &STAT_BUSY )) -pf_sleep (HZ /10 ); +msleep (100 ); flg =1 ;for (i =0 ; i <5 ; i++)
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
PATCH 1/1 paride: replace schedule_timeout() with
In reply to Nishanth AravamudanI would appreciate any comments from the janitors list. This is one (of many) cases where I made a decision about replacing
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);schedule_timeout(some_time);
with
msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(some_time));
msleep() is not exactly the same as the previous code, but I only did this replacement where I thought long delays were *desired*. If this is not the case here, then just disregard this patch.
Thanks,
Nish
Applys-to: 2.6.7
Description: Uses msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task delays at least the desired time amount.
drivers/block/paride/pg.c +1 -1
@@ -409,7 +409,7 @@ static int pg_reset(struct pg *dev)write_reg (dev,6 ,DRIVE (dev));write_reg (dev,7 ,8 ); -pg_sleep (20 *HZ /1000 ); +msleep (20 ); k =0 ;while ((k++ <PG_RESET_TMO ) && (status_reg (dev) &STAT_BUSY ))
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
PATCH 1/1 paride: replace schedule_timeout() with
In reply to Nishanth AravamudanI would appreciate any comments from the janitors list. This is one (of many) cases where I made a decision about replacing
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);schedule_timeout(some_time);
with
msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(some_time));
msleep() is not exactly the same as the previous code, but I only did this replacement where I thought long delays were *desired*. If this is not the case here, then just disregard this patch.
Thanks,
Nish
Applys-to: 2.6.7
Description: Uses msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task delays at least the desired time amount.
drivers/block/paride/pt.c +4 -10
@@ -401,12 +401,6 @@ static int pt_atapi(struct pt_unit *tapereturn r; } -static void pt_sleep (int cs) -{ - current->state =TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE ; -schedule_timeout (cs); -} -static int pt_poll_dsc (struct pt_unit *tape,int pause,int tmo,char *msg) {struct pi_adapter *pi = tape->pi;
@@ -416,7 +410,7 @@ static int pt_poll_dsc(struct pt_unit *t e =0 ; s =0 ;while (k < tmo) { -pt_sleep (pause); +msleep (jiffies_to_msecs (pause)); k++;pi_connect (pi);write_reg (pi,6 ,DRIVE (tape));
@@ -474,11 +468,11 @@ static int pt_reset(struct pt_unit *tapewrite_reg (pi,6 ,DRIVE (tape));write_reg (pi,7 ,8 ); -pt_sleep (20 *HZ /1000 ); +msleep (20 ); k =0 ;while ((k++ <PT_RESET_TMO ) && (status_reg (pi) &STAT_BUSY )) -pt_sleep (HZ /10 ); +msleep (100 ); flg =1 ;for (i =0 ; i <5 ; i++)
@@ -512,7 +506,7 @@ static int pt_ready_wait(struct pt_unitif (!(((p &0xffff ) ==0x0402 ) || ((p &0xff ) ==6 )))return p; k++; -pt_sleep (HZ ); +msleep (1000 ); }return 0x000020 ;/* timeout */ }
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors