From: Michael Hunold <hunold@convergence.de>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [PATCH] saa7146_i2c: replace
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:44:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41066A54.8080701@convergence.de> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2011 bytes --]
Hello Nishanth,
I'm sorry for the long delay. As I already explained in the mail I sent
to linux-dvb-maintainer (yes, I'm working on both projects) some mails
were "caught" by my spam filter and then we had a power failure in our
company which resulted in a huge mail overload.
> Another fix thanks to Mark Hollomon. The call
>
> msleep(ms/10);
>
> will result in rounding errors due to the integer evaluation of ms/10
> before the msleep() call. This leads to 0ms timeouts. Therefore, I have
> reinserted the 1msec offset. Please find the correction below and sorry
> for the repeated repeated patches.
> --- linux-vanilla/drivers/media/common/saa7146_i2c.c 2004-06-15 22:20:04.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-dev/drivers/media/common/saa7146_i2c.c 2004-07-26 10:27:26.000000000 -0700
> @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
> #include <linux/version.h>
> #include <media/saa7146_vv.h>
>
> -/* helper function */
> +/* helper function
> + Note: ms is in terms of tenths of a msec */
> static void my_wait(struct saa7146_dev *dev, long ms)
> {
> - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> - schedule_timeout((((ms+10)/10)*HZ)/1000);
> + msleep((ms+10)/10);
> }
I admit that this "my_wait" functions is totally bogus. It's obsolete
and it's obviously not doing what's expected (ie. wait some milliseconds).
It's only used in the time-uncritical i2c code of my saa7146 driver.
When I wrote that code, I obviously wanted to wait a certain amount of ms.
So please do me a favour and nuke that function completely and simply
replace it with msleep(). It has worked with the broken code before, now
only the waits will be 10 times longer for some error paths. The normal
code paths are not affected because either irq based i2c transactions
are used or tight udelay() loops are performed.
Is msleep() already available in 2.6.x?
How will these patches be included in 2.6?
Who is going to post patches to whom?
Do you need me to sign-off the saa7146 patches or should I prepare and
send them instead?
CU
Michael.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
next reply other threads:[~2004-07-27 14:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-27 14:44 Michael Hunold [this message]
2004-07-27 16:10 ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [PATCH] saa7146_i2c: replace Nishanth Aravamudan
2004-07-27 16:13 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2004-07-28 17:46 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41066A54.8080701@convergence.de \
--to=hunold@convergence.de \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.