[Linux-parport] [patch 1/5] block/pf: replace pf_sleep() with
msleep()
domen at coderock.org
domen at coderock.org
Mon Jun 20 17:51:04 EDT 2005
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc at us.ibm.com>
Please consider replacing with the following patch:
Use msleep() instead of pf_sleep() to guarantee
the task delays as expected. TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE is used in the original code,
however there is no check on the return values / for signals, thus I believe
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE (and hence msleep()) is more appropriate. Remove the
definition of pf_sleep().
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc at us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Domen Puncer <domen at coderock.org>
---
pf.c | 10 ++--------
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Index: quilt/drivers/block/paride/pf.c
===================================================================
--- quilt.orig/drivers/block/paride/pf.c
+++ quilt/drivers/block/paride/pf.c
@@ -505,12 +505,6 @@ 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.
@@ -525,11 +519,11 @@ 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++)
--
More information about the Linux-parport
mailing list