From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964879AbVHOUg7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:36:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964920AbVHOUg7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:36:59 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:52696 "EHLO mail.lst.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964879AbVHOUg6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:36:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:36:20 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, sfrench@samba.org, sct@redhat.com, okir@monad.swb.de.sgi.com, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, reiserfs-dev@namesys.com, urban@teststation.com, nathans@sgi.com, akpm@osdl.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com, samba@samba.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [-mm PATCH 2/32] fs: fix-up schedule_timeout() usage Message-ID: <20050815203620.GA25822@lst.de> References: <20050815180514.GC2854@us.ibm.com> <20050815180804.GE2854@us.ibm.com> <20050815181752.GA23701@lst.de> <20050815184013.GJ2854@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050815184013.GJ2854@us.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Spam-Score: -4.901 () BAYES_00 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:40:13AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > Hrm, I got dropped from the Cc list...? No worries, I'm subscribed in > two places :) I didn't do that manually, must haven some mail header thing. > I think your reference to "last time" is the KJ patches which probably > used msleep{,_interruptible}() instead of schedule_timeout(). This > patchset, in contrast, should result in *no* functional changes (beyond > some more precisie conversions, where appropriate). > schedule_timeout_interruptible(some_value), for instance is nothing more than: > > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > schedule_timeout(some_value); > > Just in the form of a combine function call. No loops like msleep() & > co. > > Is the patch still a problem? No, it's fine. Sorry for the noise.