At Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:09:50 +0200,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH] ali5451: fix timeout handling in snd_ali_{codecs,timer}_ready()
>
> Modify loops in such way that the register value is checked also after
> the timeout condition, just in case the heavy interrupt load etc. caused
> the thread to sleep for the time period exceeding the timeout value.
>
> While at it remove an extra ALI_STIMER read from snd_ali_stimer_ready().
>
> Reported-by: Jack Byer <ojbyer@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> sound/pci/ali5451/ali5451.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Index: b/sound/pci/ali5451/ali5451.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/sound/pci/ali5451/ali5451.c
> +++ b/sound/pci/ali5451/ali5451.c
> @@ -314,8 +314,11 @@ static int snd_ali_codec_ready(struct sn
> res = snd_ali_5451_peek(codec,port);
> if (!(res & 0x8000))
> return 0;
> + if (!time_after_eq(end_time, jiffies))
> + break;
> schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> - } while (time_after_eq(end_time, jiffies));
> + } while (1);
Using for (;;) is more generic. I see your patch keeps the changes
minimal, but I'm afraid that the result, do {} while(1), can be
misleading.
Could you replace with for (;;) ?
thanks,
Takashi
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
