From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
To: Margit Schubert-While <margitsw@t-online.de>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, janitor@sternwelten.at
Subject: Re: [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040902182719.GD1944@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200409021952.18280.margitsw@t-online.de>
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 07:52:18PM +0200, Margit Schubert-While wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004, Nishanth scribeth:
> > Keep in mind that msleep_interruptible() is also
> > (hopefully) being pushed to the kernel soon
>
> I think you need this for your current patch set ;-)
> eg. In e100, where you replace an interruptible timeout:
> > @@ -2020,8 +2016,7 @@
>
> I don't think that's correct.
The reasoning for me behind changing some of the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE'd
schedule_timeout()s to msleep()s was that LDD somewhat incorrectly
advised device driver authors to use an INTERRUPTIBLE timeout for longer
delays, when, in fact, they should probably use an UNINTERRUPTIBLE one.
Only if signals are explicitly expected to occur is INTERRUPTIBLE
necessary (in general). [By long delays, I mean those measurable in
msecs]
I am not an expert on the E100, so perhaps this was an error on my part.
But this is also why I have a header on my patch submission regarding
exactly this issue.
If someone could verify (none of the maintainers I sent the original
patch to did not reply with any problems for this patch) that there is
or is not an issue, I'd appreciate it.
-Nish
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-02 18:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-02 17:52 [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Margit Schubert-While
2004-09-02 18:27 ` Nishanth Aravamudan [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-09-02 17:30 Margit Schubert-While
2004-09-02 10:21 Margit Schubert-While
2004-09-02 9:35 Margit Schubert-While
2004-09-02 10:03 ` maximilian attems
2004-09-02 6:50 Margit Schubert-While
2004-09-02 8:24 ` [Kernel-janitors] " maximilian attems
2004-09-02 16:09 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2004-09-01 21:06 janitor
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=20040902182719.GD1944@us.ibm.com \
--to=nacc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=janitor@sternwelten.at \
--cc=margitsw@t-online.de \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).