Re: [patch 01/10] char/ds1620: use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout()

On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:17:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Not sure why any driver needs to sleep for *two* ticks, so let's fix it. > > Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the > task delays as expected. Signals are never checked for by the callers or > in the

[patch 01/10] char/ds1620: use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout()

Not sure why any driver needs to sleep for *two* ticks, so let's fix it. Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task delays as expected. Signals are never checked for by the callers or in the function itself, so use TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE instead of TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. The

[patch 01/10] char/ds1620: use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout()

Not sure why any driver needs to sleep for *two* ticks, so let's fix it. Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task delays as expected. Signals are never checked for by the callers or in the function itself, so use TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE instead of TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. The

Re: [patch 01/10] char/ds1620: use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout()

On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:17:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure why any driver needs to sleep for *two* ticks, so let's fix it. Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task delays as expected. Signals are never checked for by the callers or in the function