schedule_timeout(1) -- best approach?
Fellow KJ-ers,
Now that CONFIG_HZ has gone into -mm, people are going to start seeing "bugs" which may be just timing issues (in the sense of inaccurate requests).
We should have a TODO entry to look into the callers of schedule_timeout() who use arbitrary numbers instead of HZ-relative values. The most common case is schedule_timeout(1).
-Nish
TODO-dev renamed from TODO +7 -0
@@ -96,6 +96,13 @@ Remove unneeded historic code / New API them all, because we want to remove sleep_on() and friends in 2.5. [D: http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/2001week05/0305.html] Be sure to read replies too. +- Callers of schedule_timeout() who pass in an absolute constant (i.e. + with no reference to HZ) may be broken, especially with a variable HZ + value. Verify which behavior is intended: if the caller needs the + shortest delay possible, then schedule_timeout(1) is correct and a + comment can be added; if they actually need a certain amount of time, + then use msleep() or schedule_timeout with an appropriate + {msecs,usecs,nsecs}_to_jiffies() call. - Replace (un)register_ioctl32_conversion with ioctl_compat: [D: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/5/106]
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors