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]
