From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] ibmvscsi driver - sixth version Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 02:13:42 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <406BC126.1030700@pobox.com> References: <20040225134518.A4238@infradead.org> <1079027038.2820.57.camel@mulgrave> <406B3FDA.9010507@pobox.com> <406B5F4C.10000@pobox.com> <20040401060300.GA13819@praka.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:24219 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262454AbUDAHN4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Apr 2004 02:13:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20040401060300.GA13819@praka.local.home> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Vasquez Cc: SCSI Mailing List Andrew Vasquez wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > >>>>12) in ibmvscsi_probe(), you want to use TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE here: >>>> >>>>+ set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); >>>>+ schedule_timeout(5); >>>> >>>>13) in the code pasted in #12, you should pass a value calculated >>>>using the 'HZ' constant. >>> >>>Hmmm...above code copied from the qlogic driver...and it looked reasonable >>>to me, but I'll tweak it. >> >>Well, qlogic is wrong too. Do you want to submit a patch fixing qlogic >>while you're at it? ;-) >> > > > Fair enough - the driver isn't checking the return value of > schedule_timeout() in many cases. How about the attached patch > against scsi-misc-2.6. Looks good to me... but a question: in the cases you left TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, do you care at all about signals interrupting the wait? What are the implications of signal delivery and a shorter schedule_timeout() on these remaining cases? Jeff