On Fri, 29 May 2015, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:51:54AM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 2015, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > Yes, the orginal code seems to be broken. Since I've no idea what the intended > > > timeout value should be, let's simply ask Michael, who wrote this code eight > > > years ago ;) > > > While these lines get touched anyway, it would make sense to use > > > schedule_timeout_interruptible() instead, and get rid of set_current_state(). > > > > > Well that is not really equivalent > > schedule_timeout_interruptible() is doing > > __set_current_state not set_current_state > > so that would drop the mb() and no WRITE_ONCE() > > And how does that matter in this case? > I do not know - did not look into it - in any case its not a 1:1 API consolidation that all I wanted to point out before changing anything. thx! hofrat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
