I would appreciate any comments from the janitors list. This is one (of
many) cases where I made a decision about replacing
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule_timeout(some_time);
with
msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(some_time));
msleep() is not exactly the same as the previous code, but I only did
this replacement where I thought long delays were *desired*. If this is
not the case here, then just disregard this patch.
Note: I looked for the appropriate maintainer of this driver, but I did
not find anyone. If someone could tell me who that would be, I would
appreciate it.
Thanks,
Nish
Applys-to: 2.6.7
Description: Uses msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee
the task delays at least the desired time amount.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>
--- linux-vanilla/drivers/char/dsp56k.c 2004-06-16 05:19:23.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-dev/drivers/char/dsp56k.c 2004-07-08 23:13:18.000000000 +0000
@@ -58,12 +58,6 @@
#define DSP56K_TRANSMIT (dsp56k_host_interface.isr &
DSP56K_ISR_TXDE)
#define DSP56K_RECEIVE (dsp56k_host_interface.isr & DSP56K_ISR_RXDF)
-#define wait_some(n) \
-{ \
- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); \
- schedule_timeout(n); \
-}
-
#define handshake(count, maxio, timeout, ENABLE, f) \
{ \
long i, t, m; \
@@ -71,13 +65,13 @@
m = min_t(unsigned long, count, maxio); \
for (i = 0; i < m; i++) { \
for (t = 0; t < timeout && !ENABLE; t++) \
- wait_some(HZ/50); \
+ msleep(20); \
if(!ENABLE) \
return -EIO; \
f; \
} \
count -= m; \
- if (m == maxio) wait_some(HZ/50); \
+ if (m == maxio) msleep(20); \
} \
}
@@ -85,7 +79,7 @@
{ \
int t; \
for(t = 0; t < n && !DSP56K_TRANSMIT; t++) \
- wait_some(HZ/100); \
+ msleep(10); \
if(!DSP56K_TRANSMIT) { \
return -EIO; \
} \
@@ -95,7 +89,7 @@
{ \
int t; \
for(t = 0; t < n && !DSP56K_RECEIVE; t++) \
- wait_some(HZ/100); \
+ msleep(10); \
if(!DSP56K_RECEIVE) { \
return -EIO; \
} \
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
|