use schedule() instead of yield()

patch is on top of 2.6.6-rc1.

yield() removes process from active array into expired array, better just preempt with schedule().
as belows timeout is set to 5 seconds,
schedule() may be better than to use a schedule_timeout(1).

tested on my laptop, but maybe my card never reach this path.

a++ maks

diff -ruN a/drivers/net/sis900.c b/drivers/net/sis900.c
@@ -600,7 +600,7 @@
 
 	if(status & MII_STAT_LINK){
 		while (poll_bit) {
-			yield();
+			schedule();
 
 			poll_bit ^= (mdio_read(net_dev, sis_priv->cur_phy, MII_STATUS) & poll_bit);
 			if (time_after_eq(jiffies, timeout)) {

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

Max,

What we wanted to do here is just yield the CPU for a bit (not to give
it up for a long time, like the 2.6 yield).

	Eh?

Perhaps:

set_current_state (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule_timeout (HZ/100);

	?

Felipe

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

ok i'll rediff and test tomorrow morning.

well sis900.c sets

	unsigned long timeout = jiffies + 5 * HZ;

there for i thought that this hole issue "while(poll_bit)" wasn't that timing sensitive.
thanks for your propososal.

a++ maks

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors