Re: schedule_timeout() semantics/usage?

Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com)
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:02:02 -0400

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, David Hinds wrote:
>
> >Look at net/irda/*.c [..]
>
> /* Make sure nobody tries to transmit during the speed change */
> while (irda_lock((void *) &self->netdev.tbusy) == FALSE) {
> WARNING(__FUNCTION__ "(), device locked!\n");
> current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
> schedule_timeout(MSECS_TO_JIFFIES(10));
>
> if (n++ > 10) {
> WARNING(__FUNCTION__ "(), breaking loop!\n");
> break;
> }
> }
>
> The above looks a bug. It should be using
> __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE).

Since there is confusion on this subject, does it seem reasonable to
provide functions to encapsulate this behavior?

inline void ksnooze_nowakeups (unsigned long timeout)
{
__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule_timeout(timeout);
}

inline void ksnooze (unsigned long timeout)
{
do {
__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
} while (timeout);
}

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/