Tejun Heo wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
+static int ata_boot_probe_wait(void *dummy)
+{
+ schedule();
schedule_timeout(1) is preferred
Can you elaborate? AFAICS, the function is entered in
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state. No busy looping there. It's called from
wait_on_bit() which takes care of sleep/wakeup conditions.
Well, the purpose is to _wait, and so schedule_timeout() is more
appropriate than schedule(). I also that an unconditional schedule()
is a bit unfriendly if there is nothing useful to schedule at the moment.
Hmmm... I'm not very sure whether using schedule_timeout() inside
wait_on_bit() is allowed or not. I think it should work but I don't
think it's supposed to be used that way.
If schedule() can work, so can schedule_timeout()
Actually, I'm thinking about dropping the wait_on_bit() and implement
generic helper to wait for EH completion as it's done in more than one
places (during boot probing and unload unplugging and suspend/resume in
future). It probably will use completion. Would that be better?
Sure, that's what completions are for :)
Jeff
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
