Re: [PATCH] drivers/mmc/mmc.c: Replacing yield() with a better alternative

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 18:15 +0530, Amol Lad wrote:
> In 2.6, the semantics of calling yield() changed from "sleep for a
> bit" to "I really don't want to run for a while".  This matches POSIX
> better, but there's a lot of drivers still using yield() when they mean
> cond_resched(), schedule() or even schedule_timeout().
> 
> For this driver cond_resched() seems to be a better
> alternative
> 

are you sure?

> Tested compile only
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amol Lad <amol@verismonetworks.com>
> ---
> diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.19-rc1-orig/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.19-rc1-orig/drivers/mmc/mmc.c linux-2.6.19-rc1/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
> --- linux-2.6.19-rc1-orig/drivers/mmc/mmc.c	2006-10-05 14:00:46.000000000 +0530
> +++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/drivers/mmc/mmc.c	2006-10-11 17:57:02.000000000 +0530
> @@ -454,7 +454,7 @@ static void mmc_deselect_cards(struct mm
>  static inline void mmc_delay(unsigned int ms)
>  {
>  	if (ms < HZ / 1000) {
> -		yield();
> +		cond_resched();
>  		mdelay(ms);


this probably wants msleep(), especially with hrtimers comming up; there
the sleeps are always exact...


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/