Re: [patch-2.4.1-ac10] unsetting TASK_RUNNING

From: John Levon (
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 12:05:14 EST

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Tigran Aivazian wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> The only case in schedule_timeout() which does not call schedule() does
> set tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING explicitly before returning. Therefore, any
> code which unconditionally calls schedule_timeout() (and, of course
> schedule()) does not need to set TASK_RUNNING afterwards.
> I have seen some people setting this TASK_RUNNING incorrectly, based on a
> mere observation that "official Linux kernel code does so" -- so the patch
> below is not just an optimization but serves for education (i.e. to stop
> people copying unnecessary code).

I had a similar set of patches a while ago. I had several more unnecessary settings.

At least Matthew Dharm as usb-storage maintainer wanted to keep his in. Of more
concern IMHO were the drivers busy waiting by failing to reset current->state
on each iteration - e.g. maestro2, maestro3.

The patches I sent (out dated, and some of it buggy) are at :

for your reference. The last is similar to your patch.


"Having Outlook security problems so frequently that they start to blur together is a dangerous thing."
	- hackernews

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:22 EST