On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:03:37 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote:
| I would rather do schedule_timeout(1), as that's IMO closer to the
| intention...
From: maximilian attems <janitor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Kernel-janitors] [patch] use schedule_timeout() instead of yield()
drivers/net/sis900.c
thanks to Felipe W Damasio hint rediffed.
patch is on top of linux-2.6.6-rc2
yield() removes process from active array into expired array,
better just yield the CPU for a bit.
tested on my laptop with a sis900.
drivers/net/sis900.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-266-rc2-kj1/drivers/net/sis900.c
===================================================================
--- linux-266-rc2-kj1.orig/drivers/net/sis900.c 2004-04-03 19:36:57.000000000
-0800
+++ linux-266-rc2-kj1/drivers/net/sis900.c 2004-04-21 15:32:56.000000000
-0700
@@ -600,7 +600,8 @@ static int __init sis900_mii_probe (stru
if(status & MII_STAT_LINK){
while (poll_bit) {
- yield();
+ set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+ schedule_timeout(1);
poll_bit ^= (mdio_read(net_dev, sis_priv->cur_phy,
MII_STATUS) & poll_bit);
if (time_after_eq(jiffies, timeout)) {
--
|