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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Arjan van de Ven wrote:
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 <[email protected]>
---
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...

The condition looks broken too. It should be
if (ms < 1000 / HZ) {...}

Shouldn't it?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux