Re: Drivers that potentially leave state as TASK_{UN}INTERRUPTIBLE

From: John Levon (
Date: Wed Sep 06 2000 - 15:58:23 EST

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, George Anzinger wrote:

> John Levon wrote:
> >
> > Am I right ? against test8pre1
> >
> > Also, is it a bug to not set TASK_{UN}INTERRUPTIBLE before doing a
> > schedule_timeout() ? What will happen ?
> >
> Well, first the "timeout" call will return immediately. Next, when the
> time out actually happens, if the task is not TASK_RUNNING (i.e. it is
> waiting for some other thing) it will wake_up. So the sleep is lost and
> it is possible to have a false wake up (could even wake up a zombie).
> If the actual timeout happens while the task is TASK_RUNNING it is
> ignored.
> George

So it seems to be a bug at least in terms of timing. Unfortunately I only
got about 4 replies to the patches that touched 20+ drivers. I suppose I
should just hassle maintainers until they fix it or tell me where I've
gone wrong ...


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:27 EST