Skip to contentSkip to conversation

paride: replace schedule_timeout() with

PATCH New Nishanth Aravamudan 1 participant 4 messages Jul 20, 2004

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

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 *cd
 	write_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_uni
 		if (!(((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

#1 lore raw

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

#2 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 paride: replace schedule_timeout() with

In reply to Nishanth Aravamudan

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/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

#3 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 paride: replace schedule_timeout() with

In reply to Nishanth Aravamudan

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/pt.c +4 -10
@@ -401,12 +401,6 @@ static int pt_atapi(struct pt_unit *tape
 	return 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 *tape
 	write_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_unit 
 		if (!(((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