[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061011141651.GD27388@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:16:51 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Amol Lad <amol@...ismonetworks.com>,
kernel Janitors <kernel-janitors@...ts.osdl.org>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: most users of msleep_interruptible are broken
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:58:11PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > +++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/drivers/mmc/mmc.c 2006-10-11 17:57:02.000000000 +0530
> > @@ -454,7 +454,7 @@ static void mmc_deselect_cards(struct mm
> > static inline void mmc_delay(unsigned int ms)
> > {
> > if (ms < HZ / 1000) {
> > - yield();
> > + cond_resched();
> > mdelay(ms);
>
>
> this probably wants msleep(), especially with hrtimers comming up; there
> the sleeps are always exact...
They clearly don't care about exactness; they msleep_interruptible and
throw away the return value, so they don't know how long they slept
before they got a signal.
__must_check treatment for msleep_interruptible, anyone? On the one hand,
that's 136 new warnings. On the other hand, that's 136 places wheree
we may as well *delete the call* to msleep_interruptible. Since it can
return immediately, the code must be prepared to deal with that ... right?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists