[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1283366151.2209.21.camel@brekeke>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:35:51 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, dwmw2@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] jffs2: use cond_resched() instead of yield()
This 'yield()' was introduced by dwmw2, so he may have strong feelings
about it. CCed.
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 18:03 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> yield() has different semantics meanwhile and even causes RT-kernels to
> BUG. Replace the only appearance left in jffs2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> ---
>
> The aforementioned BUG() showed up in one of our customer's RT-projects. While
> this could be handled by rearranging his thread-priorities, I wondered if such
> a patch would be worthwhile, still. Reading through the material covering
> yield() and related replacements, I believe this patch should be appropriate.
> Please say if I missed some side-effects.
>
> fs/jffs2/erase.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/jffs2/erase.c b/fs/jffs2/erase.c
> index abac961..e513f19 100644
> --- a/fs/jffs2/erase.c
> +++ b/fs/jffs2/erase.c
> @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ int jffs2_erase_pending_blocks(struct jffs2_sb_info *c, int count)
> }
>
> /* Be nice */
> - yield();
> + cond_resched();
> mutex_lock(&c->erase_free_sem);
> spin_lock(&c->erase_completion_lock);
> }
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)
--
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