On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:59:14PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> domen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee
> >the task delays as expected. While the original code does use
> >TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, it does not check for signals, so I believe msleep()
> >is more
> >appropriate.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Signed-off-by: Domen Puncer <domen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> >
> >
> > kj-domen/drivers/net/slip.c | 7 +++----
> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff -puN drivers/net/slip.c~msleep-drivers_net_slip drivers/net/slip.c
> >--- kj/drivers/net/slip.c~msleep-drivers_net_slip 2005-03-05
> >16:10:49.000000000 +0100
> >+++ kj-domen/drivers/net/slip.c 2005-03-05 16:10:49.000000000 +0100
> >@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@
> > #include <linux/if_arp.h>
> > #include <linux/if_slip.h>
> > #include <linux/init.h>
> >+#include <linux/delay.h>
> > #include "slip.h"
> > #ifdef CONFIG_INET
> > #include <linux/ip.h>
> >@@ -1395,10 +1396,8 @@ static void __exit slip_exit(void)
> > /* First of all: check for active disciplines and hangup them.
> > */
> > do {
> >- if (busy) {
> >- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >- schedule_timeout(HZ / 10);
> >- }
> >+ if (busy)
> >+ msleep(100);
>
> msleep_interruptible
I'm fine with changing this; what should the code do if a signal causes
an early return? I switched to msleep() in my patch because the current
code did nothing and that seemed buggy to me.
Thanks for the feedback,
Nish
|