All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [patch 1/8]  irda/act200l-sir: replace  schedule_timeout() with msleep()
@ 2004-09-01 21:05 janitor
  2004-09-01 21:09 ` Jean Tourrilhes
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: janitor @ 2004-09-01 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netdev; +Cc: jgarzik, jt, janitor







I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. 



Description: Replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() to guarantee the
task delays for the desired time.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Maximilian Attems <janitor@sternwelten.at>



---

 linux-2.6.9-rc1-bk7-max/drivers/net/irda/act200l-sir.c |    3 +--
 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff -puN drivers/net/irda/act200l-sir.c~msleep-drivers_net_irda_act200l-sir drivers/net/irda/act200l-sir.c
--- linux-2.6.9-rc1-bk7/drivers/net/irda/act200l-sir.c~msleep-drivers_net_irda_act200l-sir	2004-09-01 19:35:31.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.9-rc1-bk7-max/drivers/net/irda/act200l-sir.c	2004-09-01 19:35:31.000000000 +0200
@@ -177,8 +177,7 @@ static int act200l_change_speed(struct s
 
 	/* Write control bytes */
 	sirdev_raw_write(dev, control, 3);
-	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
-	schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(5));
+	msleep(5);
 
 	/* Go back to normal mode */
 	sirdev_set_dtr_rts(dev, TRUE, TRUE);

_

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 1/8]  irda/act200l-sir: replace  schedule_timeout() with msleep()
  2004-09-01 21:05 [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() janitor
@ 2004-09-01 21:09 ` Jean Tourrilhes
  2004-09-01 21:40     ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() maximilian attems
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jean Tourrilhes @ 2004-09-01 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: janitor; +Cc: netdev, jgarzik

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:05:23PM +0200, janitor@sternwelten.at wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. 

	I already commented that I don't like the confusing msleep()
API and I prefer the more explicit schedule_timeout().
	But that's only me...

	Jean

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace
  2004-09-01 21:09 ` Jean Tourrilhes
@ 2004-09-01 21:40     ` maximilian attems
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: maximilian attems @ 2004-09-01 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jt; +Cc: kj, netdev, jgarzik

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 666 bytes --]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:05:23PM +0200, janitor@sternwelten.at wrote:
> > I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. 
uups mangled some text there sorry for this silly email.
> 
> 	I already commented that I don't like the confusing msleep()
> API and I prefer the more explicit schedule_timeout().
> 	But that's only me...
> 
> 	Jean

hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
	schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);

the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.

--
maks
kernel janitor  	http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/


[-- 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] 10+ messages in thread
* [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()
@ 2004-09-01 21:40     ` maximilian attems
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: maximilian attems @ 2004-09-01 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jt; +Cc: kj, netdev, jgarzik

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 666 bytes --]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:05:23PM +0200, janitor@sternwelten.at wrote:
> > I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. 
uups mangled some text there sorry for this silly email.
> 
> 	I already commented that I don't like the confusing msleep()
> API and I prefer the more explicit schedule_timeout().
> 	But that's only me...
> 
> 	Jean

hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
	schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);

the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.

--
maks
kernel janitor  	http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/


[-- 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] 10+ messages in thread
* [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace
  2004-09-01 21:40     ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() maximilian attems
@ 2004-09-01 21:48       ` Jean Tourrilhes
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jean Tourrilhes @ 2004-09-01 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netdev, jgarzik, kj

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 926 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:05:23PM +0200, janitor@sternwelten.at wrote:
> > > I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. 
> uups mangled some text there sorry for this silly email.
> > 
> > 	I already commented that I don't like the confusing msleep()
> > API and I prefer the more explicit schedule_timeout().
> > 	But that's only me...
> > 
> > 	Jean
> 
> hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
> i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
> 	schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);
> 
> the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.

	I don't have complain about converting the (HZ + 99) / 100
expressions to something saner. My beef is the fact that msleep hide
the fact that a schedule might happen. This is important in the IrDA
code.

> maks

	Jean

[-- 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] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 1/8]  irda/act200l-sir: replace  schedule_timeout() with msleep()
@ 2004-09-01 21:48       ` Jean Tourrilhes
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jean Tourrilhes @ 2004-09-01 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netdev, jgarzik, kj

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:05:23PM +0200, janitor@sternwelten.at wrote:
> > > I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. 
> uups mangled some text there sorry for this silly email.
> > 
> > 	I already commented that I don't like the confusing msleep()
> > API and I prefer the more explicit schedule_timeout().
> > 	But that's only me...
> > 
> > 	Jean
> 
> hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
> i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
> 	schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);
> 
> the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.

	I don't have complain about converting the (HZ + 99) / 100
expressions to something saner. My beef is the fact that msleep hide
the fact that a schedule might happen. This is important in the IrDA
code.

> maks

	Jean

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace
  2004-09-01 21:48       ` [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Jean Tourrilhes
@ 2004-09-01 22:03         ` Nishanth Aravamudan
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Aravamudan @ 2004-09-01 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jt; +Cc: kj, netdev, jgarzik

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1508 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:05:23PM +0200, janitor@sternwelten.at wrote:
> > > > I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. 
> > uups mangled some text there sorry for this silly email.
> > > 
> > > 	I already commented that I don't like the confusing msleep()
> > > API and I prefer the more explicit schedule_timeout().
> > > 	But that's only me...
> > > 
> > > 	Jean
> > 
> > hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
> > i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
> > 	schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);
> > 
> > the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.
> 
> 	I don't have complain about converting the (HZ + 99) / 100
> expressions to something saner. My beef is the fact that msleep hide
> the fact that a schedule might happen. This is important in the IrDA
> code.

It *is* important for developers to realize that invoking msleep() may
involve giving up the CPU (ie. eventually calling schedule()); however,
I think my previous point, that the name itself (the "sleep" part, I mean)
is a fair and clear indication of this behavior, is valid. In those
cases where a busy-wait is desired, then mdelay() should be used, as
indicated by "delay". I think with this in mind & with a quick glance at
the source, if need be, the naming is quite safe.

-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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()
@ 2004-09-01 22:03         ` Nishanth Aravamudan
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Aravamudan @ 2004-09-01 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jt; +Cc: kj, netdev, jgarzik

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1508 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:05:23PM +0200, janitor@sternwelten.at wrote:
> > > > I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. 
> > uups mangled some text there sorry for this silly email.
> > > 
> > > 	I already commented that I don't like the confusing msleep()
> > > API and I prefer the more explicit schedule_timeout().
> > > 	But that's only me...
> > > 
> > > 	Jean
> > 
> > hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
> > i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
> > 	schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);
> > 
> > the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.
> 
> 	I don't have complain about converting the (HZ + 99) / 100
> expressions to something saner. My beef is the fact that msleep hide
> the fact that a schedule might happen. This is important in the IrDA
> code.

It *is* important for developers to realize that invoking msleep() may
involve giving up the CPU (ie. eventually calling schedule()); however,
I think my previous point, that the name itself (the "sleep" part, I mean)
is a fair and clear indication of this behavior, is valid. In those
cases where a busy-wait is desired, then mdelay() should be used, as
indicated by "delay". I think with this in mind & with a quick glance at
the source, if need be, the naming is quite safe.

-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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace
  2004-09-01 21:48       ` [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Jean Tourrilhes
@ 2004-09-01 22:58         ` maximilian attems
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: maximilian attems @ 2004-09-01 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jt; +Cc: kj, netdev, jgarzik

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 737 bytes --]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
..
> > 
> > hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
> > i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
> > 	schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);
> > 
> > the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.
> 
> 	I don't have complain about converting the (HZ + 99) / 100
> expressions to something saner. My beef is the fact that msleep hide
> the fact that a schedule might happen. This is important in the IrDA
> code.

sorry my woding was confusing:
(HZ + 99) / 100 is correct!
as msleep(10)
 
--
maks
kernel janitor  	http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/



[-- 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] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()
@ 2004-09-01 22:58         ` maximilian attems
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: maximilian attems @ 2004-09-01 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jt; +Cc: kj, netdev, jgarzik

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 737 bytes --]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
..
> > 
> > hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
> > i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
> > 	schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);
> > 
> > the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.
> 
> 	I don't have complain about converting the (HZ + 99) / 100
> expressions to something saner. My beef is the fact that msleep hide
> the fact that a schedule might happen. This is important in the IrDA
> code.

sorry my woding was confusing:
(HZ + 99) / 100 is correct!
as msleep(10)
 
--
maks
kernel janitor  	http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/



[-- 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] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-01 22:58 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-01 21:05 [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() janitor
2004-09-01 21:09 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2004-09-01 21:40   ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace maximilian attems
2004-09-01 21:40     ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() maximilian attems
2004-09-01 21:48     ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace Jean Tourrilhes
2004-09-01 21:48       ` [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Jean Tourrilhes
2004-09-01 22:03       ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace Nishanth Aravamudan
2004-09-01 22:03         ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Nishanth Aravamudan
2004-09-01 22:58       ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace maximilian attems
2004-09-01 22:58         ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() maximilian attems

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.