[Kernel-janitors] Re: [PATCH] usb/auerswald: replace

[Kernel-janitors] Re: [PATCH] usb/auerswald: replace

[Wolfgang Mües]

Hello Nishanth,

On Wednesday 28 July 2004 01:12, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> I would appreciate any comments from the janitors list.
>
> Applys-to: 2.6.7
>
> Description: Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to
> guarantee the task delays for the desired time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
>
>
> --- linux-vanilla/drivers/usb/misc/auerswald.c	2004-06-16

I am the author of this driver.

Can you give me the rationale of the proposed change?
In what sense is msleep() better/other than schedule_timeout?

Note that I am rewriting this driver now. But I have heavy problems with 
the error handling of control IN messages and/or INT IN messages on USB 
2.0 UHCI in SMP systems....

best regards
Wolfgang Mües


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

[Kernel-janitors] Re: [PATCH] usb/auerswald: replace

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1780 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 08:23:23PM +0200, Wolfgang M?es wrote:
> Hello Nishanth,
> 
> On Wednesday 28 July 2004 01:12, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > I would appreciate any comments from the janitors list.
> >
> > Applys-to: 2.6.7
> >
> > Description: Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to
> > guarantee the task delays for the desired time.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
> >
> >
> > --- linux-vanilla/drivers/usb/misc/auerswald.c	2004-06-16
> 
> I am the author of this driver.
> 
> Can you give me the rationale of the proposed change?
> In what sense is msleep() better/other than schedule_timeout?

Certainly. Some of this is going to be a repetition from previous posts
to the list, but oh well.

In this particular case, the rationale is quite simple. There are
certain situations -- the details of which I will have to defer to Greg
Kroah-Hartman for -- in which a code snippet such as:

set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule_timeout(some_time);

will not delay as desired, i.e. the task resumes *before* some_time has
elapsed, instead of after. To prevent this condition from occuring,
msleep() wraps the schedule_timeout() in a while-loop on the timeout
value. Thus, as long as the timeout retains a positive value the task
gives the CPU back up and delays again. And once the timeout is 0, the
task is resumed. For the details, I recommend consulting the source
(kernel/timer.c).

Also, and this is less technical, but msleep() allows code to be written
in terms of milliseconds instead of jiffies, which is far clearer to a
person, IMO. All rounding issues are taken care of by msleep() as well,
as it uses msecs_to_jiffies() to calculate the correct delay value for
schedule_timeout().

Does that help?

Thanks,
Nish

[-- 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

[Kernel-janitors] Re: [PATCH] usb/auerswald: replace

[Greg KH]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 351 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 04:12:36PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> I would appreciate any comments from the janitors list. 
> 
> Applys-to: 2.6.7
> 
> Description: Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to 
> guarantee the task delays for the desired time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>

Applied, thanks.

greg k-h

[-- 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