From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:49:36 +0200 From: Nicholas Mc Guire Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] s390/sclp: pass timeout as HZ independent value Message-ID: <20150529114936.GA21897@opentech.at> References: <1432746283-8068-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> <20150529090715.GA4169@osiris> <20150529095154.GB9952@opentech.at> <20150529103523.GB4169@osiris> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150529103523.GB4169@osiris> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire , Michael Holzheu , Martin Schwidefsky , linux390@de.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 29 May 2015, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:51:54AM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 2015, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Yes, the orginal code seems to be broken. Since I've no idea what the intended > > > timeout value should be, let's simply ask Michael, who wrote this code eight > > > years ago ;) > > > While these lines get touched anyway, it would make sense to use > > > schedule_timeout_interruptible() instead, and get rid of set_current_state(). > > > > > Well that is not really equivalent > > schedule_timeout_interruptible() is doing > > __set_current_state not set_current_state > > so that would drop the mb() and no WRITE_ONCE() > > And how does that matter in this case? > I do not know - did not look into it - in any case its not a 1:1 API consolidation that all I wanted to point out before changing anything. thx! hofrat