Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266825AbUIXCJ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:09:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266807AbUIWUjo (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:39:44 -0400 Received: from baikonur.stro.at ([213.239.196.228]:63177 "EHLO baikonur.stro.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266775AbUIWUZ1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [patch 12/26] char/istallion: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep_interruptible() To: akpm@digeo.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, janitor@sternwelten.at, nacc@us.ibm.com From: janitor@sternwelten.at Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:25:27 +0200 Message-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3337 Lines: 85 Any comments would be appreciated. I'm not sure if I did the desired thing here, as I got rid of stli_delay() completely. After the msleep_interruptible() replacement, stli_delay() would only be used in one place. I'm not sure which way is preferred (the original or mine) regarding the second change, therefore. Description: Use msleep_interruptible() instead of stli_delay() to guarantee the task delays as expected. Removed the definition / prototype of stli_delay() as it was only called in one other place, where I made the direct change to set_current_state()/schedule_timeout(). Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan Signed-off-by: Maximilian Attems --- linux-2.6.9-rc2-bk7-max/drivers/char/istallion.c | 25 ++--------------------- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff -puN drivers/char/istallion.c~msleep_interruptible-drivers_char_istallion drivers/char/istallion.c --- linux-2.6.9-rc2-bk7/drivers/char/istallion.c~msleep_interruptible-drivers_char_istallion 2004-09-21 21:08:11.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.6.9-rc2-bk7-max/drivers/char/istallion.c 2004-09-21 21:08:11.000000000 +0200 @@ -691,7 +691,6 @@ static int stli_rawopen(stlibrd_t *brdp, static int stli_rawclose(stlibrd_t *brdp, stliport_t *portp, unsigned long arg, int wait); static int stli_waitcarrier(stlibrd_t *brdp, stliport_t *portp, struct file *filp); static void stli_dohangup(void *arg); -static void stli_delay(int len); static int stli_setport(stliport_t *portp); static int stli_cmdwait(stlibrd_t *brdp, stliport_t *portp, unsigned long cmd, void *arg, int size, int copyback); static void stli_sendcmd(stlibrd_t *brdp, stliport_t *portp, unsigned long cmd, void *arg, int size, int copyback); @@ -1180,7 +1179,7 @@ static void stli_close(struct tty_struct if (portp->openwaitcnt) { if (portp->close_delay) - stli_delay(portp->close_delay); + msleep_interruptible(jiffies_to_msecs(portp->close_delay)); wake_up_interruptible(&portp->open_wait); } @@ -1478,25 +1477,6 @@ static int stli_setport(stliport_t *port /*****************************************************************************/ /* - * Wait for a specified delay period, this is not a busy-loop. It will - * give up the processor while waiting. Unfortunately this has some - * rather intimate knowledge of the process management stuff. - */ - -static void stli_delay(int len) -{ -#ifdef DEBUG - printk("stli_delay(len=%d)\n", len); -#endif - if (len > 0) { - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); - schedule_timeout(len); - } -} - -/*****************************************************************************/ - -/* * Possibly need to wait for carrier (DCD signal) to come high. Say * maybe because if we are clocal then we don't need to wait... */ @@ -2504,7 +2484,8 @@ static void stli_waituntilsent(struct tt while (test_bit(ST_TXBUSY, &portp->state)) { if (signal_pending(current)) break; - stli_delay(2); + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); + schedule_timeout(2); if (time_after_eq(jiffies, tend)) break; } _ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/