Re: [patch-2.4.1-ac10] unsetting TASK_RUNNING

2001-02-22 Thread Manfred Spraul
John Levon wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > > > Hi Alan, > > > > The only case in schedule_timeout() which does not call schedule() does > > set tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING explicitly before returning. Therefore, any > > code which unconditionally calls schedule_timeout() (

Re: [patch-2.4.1-ac10] unsetting TASK_RUNNING

2001-02-14 Thread Tigran Aivazian
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, John Levon wrote: > I had a similar set of patches a while ago. I had several more unnecessary settings. > > At least Matthew Dharm as usb-storage maintainer wanted to keep his in. Of more > concern IMHO were the drivers busy waiting by failing to reset current->state > on ea

Re: [patch-2.4.1-ac10] unsetting TASK_RUNNING

2001-02-13 Thread John Levon
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > Hi Alan, > > The only case in schedule_timeout() which does not call schedule() does > set tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING explicitly before returning. Therefore, any > code which unconditionally calls schedule_timeout() (and, of course > schedule()) does

[patch-2.4.1-ac10] unsetting TASK_RUNNING

2001-02-13 Thread Tigran Aivazian
Hi Alan, The only case in schedule_timeout() which does not call schedule() does set tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING explicitly before returning. Therefore, any code which unconditionally calls schedule_timeout() (and, of course schedule()) does not need to set TASK_RUNNING afterwards. I have seen som