Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> 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.

To be clear, the 100 ms I mention above is specific to this example. In 
general, if the time you want to sleep (and you really want to *sleep* 
for that time) is measureable in msecs, then msleep() is the way to go.

-Nish