[Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] s390/ctctty: replace schedule_timeout()

From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] s390/ctctty: replace schedule_timeout()
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:11:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040727221133.GE3471@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040727221045.GD3471@us.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1267 bytes --]

Wrong subject line.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:10:45PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 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: Replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() to guarantee the task
> delays as desired.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
> 
> 
> --- linux-vanilla/drivers/s390/net/ctctty.c	2004-06-16 05:19:35.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-dev/drivers/s390/net/ctctty.c	2004-07-12 22:26:29.000000000 +0000
> @@ -1039,8 +1039,7 @@ ctc_tty_close(struct tty_struct *tty, st
>  	info->tty = 0;
>  	tty->closing = 0;
>  	if (info->blocked_open) {
> -		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> -		schedule_timeout(HZ/2);
> +		msleep(500);
>  		wake_up_interruptible(&info->open_wait);
>  	}
>  	info->flags &= ~(CTC_ASYNC_NORMAL_ACTIVE | CTC_ASYNC_CLOSING);

[-- 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