All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] paride: replace schedule_timeout() with
@ 2004-07-20 18:04 Nishanth Aravamudan
  2004-07-20 18:06 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Aravamudan @ 2004-07-20 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kernel-janitors

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1634 bytes --]

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.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>


--- linux-vanilla/drivers/block/paride/pcd.c	2004-06-16 05:20:04.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-dev/drivers/block/paride/pcd.c	2004-07-08 23:21:38.000000000 +0000
@@ -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 */
 }

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] paride: replace schedule_timeout() with
  2004-07-20 18:04 [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] paride: replace schedule_timeout() with Nishanth Aravamudan
@ 2004-07-20 18:06 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
  2004-07-20 18:08 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
  2004-07-20 18:10 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Aravamudan @ 2004-07-20 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kernel-janitors

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1561 bytes --]

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.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>


--- linux-vanilla/drivers/block/paride/pf.c	2004-06-16 05:19:42.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-dev/drivers/block/paride/pf.c	2004-07-08 23:14:06.000000000 +0000
@@ -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++)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] paride: replace schedule_timeout() with
  2004-07-20 18:04 [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] paride: replace schedule_timeout() with Nishanth Aravamudan
  2004-07-20 18:06 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
@ 2004-07-20 18:08 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
  2004-07-20 18:10 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Aravamudan @ 2004-07-20 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kernel-janitors

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1030 bytes --]

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.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>


--- linux-vanilla/drivers/block/paride/pg.c	2004-06-16 05:19:52.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-dev/drivers/block/paride/pg.c	2004-07-08 23:18:19.000000000 +0000
@@ -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))

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] paride: replace schedule_timeout() with
  2004-07-20 18:04 [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] paride: replace schedule_timeout() with Nishanth Aravamudan
  2004-07-20 18:06 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
  2004-07-20 18:08 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
@ 2004-07-20 18:10 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Aravamudan @ 2004-07-20 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kernel-janitors

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1838 bytes --]

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.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>


--- linux-vanilla/drivers/block/paride/pt.c	2004-06-16 05:19:02.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-dev/drivers/block/paride/pt.c	2004-07-08 23:20:47.000000000 +0000
@@ -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 */
 }

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-07-20 18:10 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-07-20 18:04 [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] paride: replace schedule_timeout() with Nishanth Aravamudan
2004-07-20 18:06 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2004-07-20 18:08 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2004-07-20 18:10 ` Nishanth Aravamudan

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.