[Linux-parport] [patch 2/4] paride: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()

[janitor at sternwelten.at]

I would appreciate any comments from the janitor at sternweltens list. This is one (of
many) cases where I made a decision about replacing

set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule_timeout(some_time);

with

msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(some_time));

msleep() is not exactly the same as the previous code, but I only did
this replacement where I thought long delays were *desired*. If this is
not the case here, then just disregard this patch.

Thanks,
Nish



Description: Uses msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee
the task delays at least the desired time amount.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc at us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Maximilian Attems <janitor at sternwelten.at>



---

 linux-2.6.9-rc1-bk7-max/drivers/block/paride/pf.c |   10 ++--------
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff -puN drivers/block/paride/pf.c~msleep-drivers_block_paride_pf drivers/block/paride/pf.c
--- linux-2.6.9-rc1-bk7/drivers/block/paride/pf.c~msleep-drivers_block_paride_pf	2004-09-01 19:34:39.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.9-rc1-bk7-max/drivers/block/paride/pf.c	2004-09-01 19:34:39.000000000 +0200
@@ -526,12 +526,6 @@ static void pf_eject(struct pf_unit *pf)
 
 #define PF_RESET_TMO   30	/* in tenths of a second */
 
-static void pf_sleep(int cs)
-{
-	current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
-	schedule_timeout(cs);
-}
-
 /* the ATAPI standard actually specifies the contents of all 7 registers
    after a reset, but the specification is ambiguous concerning the last
    two bytes, and different drives interpret the standard differently.
@@ -546,11 +540,11 @@ static int pf_reset(struct pf_unit *pf)
 	write_reg(pf, 6, 0xa0+0x10*pf->drive);
 	write_reg(pf, 7, 8);
 
-	pf_sleep(20 * HZ / 1000);
+	msleep(20);
 
 	k = 0;
 	while ((k++ < PF_RESET_TMO) && (status_reg(pf) & STAT_BUSY))
-		pf_sleep(HZ / 10);
+		msleep(100);
 
 	flg = 1;
 	for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)

_