From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:21:25 +0000 Subject: [KJ] [PATCH 1/22] arm/cpu-sa1110: replace schedule_timeout() with Message-Id: <20050117182125.GA24698@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============65824191632929385==" List-Id: To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org --===============65824191632929385== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi, Please consider applying. Description: Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task delays as expected. Neither signals nor wait-queue events are important at this point in the code, I believe. Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan --- 2.6.11-rc1-kj-v/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c 2005-01-15 16:55:41.000000000 -0800 +++ 2.6.11-rc1-kj/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c 2005-01-15 17:10:24.000000000 -0800 @@ -271,8 +271,7 @@ static int sa1110_target(struct cpufreq_ */ sdram_set_refresh(2); if (!irqs_disabled()) { - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); - schedule_timeout(20 * HZ / 1000); + msleep(20); } else { mdelay(20); } --===============65824191632929385== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============65824191632929385==--