[patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()

[patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()

[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);

_

Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()

[Jean Tourrilhes]

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

[Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace

[maximilian attems]

[-- 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

[Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()

[maximilian attems]

[-- 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

[Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace

[Jean Tourrilhes]

[-- 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

Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()

[Jean Tourrilhes]

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

Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

[-- 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

Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

[-- 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

Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace

[maximilian attems]

[-- 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

Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()

[maximilian attems]

[-- 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