On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:07:32 +0000, Willem Riede <osst@riede.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/13/2004 01:40:54 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:

<snip>

> > If someone could tell me which state (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) is desired, I can fix this and perhaps replace the
> > calls with msleep().
> 
> You're right, there is a set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) missing.
> I don't know why we would want to change to use msleep() though.

<snip>

The main reason I see for using msleep() instead is if the task should
sleep for at least 100 ms. Using TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE (or really
anything other than msleep()) is not guaranteed to sleep as long as
requested. If that's ok / desired, then I won't convert it, of course.

Thanks,
Nish