Re: [UPDATE PATCH] ieee1394/sbp2: use ssleep() instead of schedule_timeout()

[Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>]

Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Description: Use ssleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee 
> the task
> delays as expected. The existing code should not really need to run in
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, as there is no check for signals (or even an 
> early return
> value whatsoever). ssleep() takes care of these issues.

> --- 2.6.10-v/drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c	2004-12-24 13:34:00.000000000 
> -0800
> +++ 2.6.10/drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c	2005-01-05 14:23:05.000000000 -0800
> @@ -902,8 +902,7 @@ alloc_fail:
> 	 * connected to the sbp2 device being removed. That host would
> 	 * have a certain amount of time to relogin before the sbp2 device
> 	 * allows someone else to login instead. One second makes sense. */
> -	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> -	schedule_timeout(HZ);
> +	ssleep(1);

Maybe the current code is _deliberately_ accepting interruption by 
signals but trying to complete sbp2_probe() anyway. However it seems 
more plausible to me to abort the device probe, for example like this:
if (msleep_interruptible(1000)) {
	sbp2_remove_device(scsi_id);
	return -EINTR;
}
Anyway, signal handling does not appear to be critical there.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=-= ---= -=--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/