[UPDATE PATCH] block/pf: replace pf_sleep() with msleep()

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:47:03PM +0100, Domen Puncer wrote:
> Patchset of 171 patches is at http://coderock.org/kj/2.6.10-bk13-kj/
> 
> Quick patch summary: about 30 new, 30 merged, 30 dropped.
> Seems like most external trees are merged in -linus, so i'll start
> (re)sending old patches.

<snip>

> msleep_interruptible-drivers_block_pf.patch

Please consider replacing with the following patch:

Description: Use msleep() instead of pf_sleep() to guarantee
the task delays as expected. TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE is used in the original code,
however there is no check on the return values / for signals, thus I believe
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE (and hence msleep()) is more appropriate. Remove the
definition of pf_sleep().

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>


--- 2.6.10-v/drivers/block/paride/pf.c	2004-12-24 13:35:01.000000000 -0800
+++ 2.6.10/drivers/block/paride/pf.c	2005-01-10 12:20:20.000000000 -0800
@@ -526,12 +526,6 @@ static void pf_eject(struct pf_unit *pf)
 
 #define PF_RESET_TMO   30	/* in tenths of a second */
 
-static void pf_sleep(int cs)
-{
-	current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
-	schedule_timeout(cs);
-}
-
 /* the ATAPI standard actually specifies the contents of all 7 registers
    after a reset, but the specification is ambiguous concerning the last
    two bytes, and different drives interpret the standard differently.
@@ -546,11 +540,11 @@ static int pf_reset(struct pf_unit *pf)
 	write_reg(pf, 6, 0xa0+0x10*pf->drive);
 	write_reg(pf, 7, 8);
 
-	pf_sleep(20 * HZ / 1000);
+	msleep(20);
 
 	k = 0;
 	while ((k++ < PF_RESET_TMO) && (status_reg(pf) & STAT_BUSY))
-		pf_sleep(HZ / 10);
+		msleep(100);
 
 	flg = 1;
 	for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/