From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:06:49 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] [PATCH] Get rid of yield() Message-Id: <20051014140649.GE16113@parisc-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============50905801774355153==" List-Id: References: <20051013191321.GA22138@masoud.ir> In-Reply-To: <20051013191321.GA22138@masoud.ir> To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org --===============50905801774355153== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 06:35:16AM -0700, Nish Aravamudan wrote: > And from a functional perspective, this is clearly a case where there > is only one state that will match how the old code worked -- > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. If one were to use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, there is > no guarantee that a single schedule_timeout(HZ/50) call would last the > full request time, so you'd need to loop there as well. Do you think it's worth putting a WARN_ON(current->state == TASK_RUNNING) into schedule_timeout(), or are there legitimate reasons for occasionally calling schedule_timeout() with the task in TASK_RUNNING? --===============50905801774355153== 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 https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============50905801774355153==--