Domen Puncer wrote:

>On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 03:34:44PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi list,
>>
>>Following what i've said, i'm looking each yield() call to check if it 
>>needs to be
>>replaced.I'll send two more patches today and a status message, if 
>>everything
>>is ok, i'm planning to complete this task on the next week.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Gustavo Franco
>>
>>--- drivers/scsi/megaraid.c.orig     2004-04-24 13:54:26.000000000 -0300
>>+++ drivers/scsi/megaraid.c  2004-04-24 13:54:36.000000000 -0300
>>@@ -1691,7 +1691,7 @@
>>       for (counter = 0; counter < 10000; counter++) {
>>               if (!mbox->m_in.busy)
>>                       return 0;
>>-               udelay(100); yield();
>>+               udelay(100); schedule_timeout(1);
>>    
>>
>
>This makes no sense to me.
>schedule without set_current_state (also missing in other patches);
>Why leave udelay?
>
>How about something like:
>	for (counter = 0; counter < 1000; counter++) {
>		if (!mbox->m_in.busy)
>			return 0;
>		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>		schedule_timeout(1);
>
>counter < 1000 test is on purpose, to get >= 1 second, not 10.
>
>  
>
Hi Domen,

My failure, i haven't checked if the set_current_state() was really 
needed.I'm working
on the TODO item "Calling yield() Considered Harmful" written by Matthew 
Wilcox.Since
set_current_state() isn't cited by him and wasn't by Randy, i'll wait 
until Randy ask for rediffied
patches.Randy?

Thanks,
Gustavo Franco