From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willem Riede Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:59:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] Re: no set_current_state() before Message-Id: <1089765906l.26949l.2l@serve.riede.org> List-Id: References: <40F41EA6.9000900@us.ibm.com> <1089760052l.26949l.0l@serve.riede.org> <29495f1d04071316362e782433@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <29495f1d04071316362e782433@mail.gmail.com> (from nish.aravamudan@gmail.com on Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 19:36:01 -0400) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nish Aravamudan Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, osst-users@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 07/13/2004 07:36:01 PM, Nish Aravamudan wrote: > > The main reason I see for using msleep() instead is if the task should > sleep for at least 100 ms. Using TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE (or really > anything other than msleep()) is not guaranteed to sleep as long as > requested. If that's ok / desired, then I won't convert it, of course. There is no need for such guarantee. The current behavior is OK, by design. Regards, Willem Riede. _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willem Riede Subject: Re: [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] Re: no set_current_state() before schedule_timeout() (OSST) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:45:06 +0000 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1089765906l.26949l.2l@serve.riede.org> References: <40F41EA6.9000900@us.ibm.com> <1089760052l.26949l.0l@serve.riede.org> <29495f1d04071316362e782433@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; DelSp=Yes Format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]:37365 "EHLO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265891AbUGMXyG convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:54:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <29495f1d04071316362e782433@mail.gmail.com> (from nish.aravamudan@gmail.com on Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 19:36:01 -0400) Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Nish Aravamudan Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, osst-users@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 07/13/2004 07:36:01 PM, Nish Aravamudan wrote: > > The main reason I see for using msleep() instead is if the task should > sleep for at least 100 ms. Using TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE (or really > anything other than msleep()) is not guaranteed to sleep as long as > requested. If that's ok / desired, then I won't convert it, of course. There is no need for such guarantee. The current behavior is OK, by design. Regards, Willem Riede.