On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, George Anzinger wrote:
> Actually I was not quite correct. The call to timeout WILL return
> immediately, however, the timeout code will clean up the timer, so there
> should be no worry there. It is a bug in that the sleep does not happen
> as expected. I saw at least one
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, George Anzinger wrote:
Actually I was not quite correct. The call to timeout WILL return
immediately, however, the timeout code will clean up the timer, so there
should be no worry there. It is a bug in that the sleep does not happen
as expected. I saw at least one
You can ran into problems using schedule_timeout() in a block device request
function under 2.4.
This can be demonstrated by starting some I/O intensive tasks to your block
device and running sync in another task. Eventually the block layer will
lock up.
This can be fixed by creating a kernel
David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > So it seems to be a bug at least in terms of timing. Unfortunately I
> > only got about 4 replies to the patches that touched 20+ drivers. I
> > suppose I should just hassle maintainers until they fix it or tell me
> > where I've gone wrong
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, George Anzinger wrote:
>
> > John Levon wrote:
> > >
> > > Am I right ? against test8pre1
> > >
> > > Also, is it a bug to not set TASK_{UN}INTERRUPTIBLE before doing a
> > > schedule_timeout() ? What will happen ?
> > >
> > Well, first the "timeout"
David Woodhouse wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So it seems to be a bug at least in terms of timing. Unfortunately I
only got about 4 replies to the patches that touched 20+ drivers. I
suppose I should just hassle maintainers until they fix it or tell me
where I've gone wrong ...
You can ran into problems using schedule_timeout() in a block device request
function under 2.4.
This can be demonstrated by starting some I/O intensive tasks to your block
device and running sync in another task. Eventually the block layer will
lock up.
This can be fixed by creating a kernel
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, George Anzinger wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
> >
> > Am I right ? against test8pre1
> >
> > Also, is it a bug to not set TASK_{UN}INTERRUPTIBLE before doing a
> > schedule_timeout() ? What will happen ?
> >
> Well, first the "timeout" call will return immediately. Next,
John Levon wrote:
>
> Am I right ? against test8pre1
>
> Also, is it a bug to not set TASK_{UN}INTERRUPTIBLE before doing a
> schedule_timeout() ? What will happen ?
>
Well, first the "timeout" call will return immediately. Next, when the
time out actually happens, if the task is not
Am I right ? against test8pre1
Also, is it a bug to not set TASK_{UN}INTERRUPTIBLE before doing a
schedule_timeout() ? What will happen ?
thanks
john
--- drivers/pcmcia/yenta.c Fri Aug 11 00:21:32 2000
+++ drivers/pcmcia/yenta.c.new Fri Sep 1 02:42:55 2000
@@ -574,6 +574,7 @@
Am I right ? against test8pre1
Also, is it a bug to not set TASK_{UN}INTERRUPTIBLE before doing a
schedule_timeout() ? What will happen ?
thanks
john
--- drivers/pcmcia/yenta.c Fri Aug 11 00:21:32 2000
+++ drivers/pcmcia/yenta.c.new Fri Sep 1 02:42:55 2000
@@ -574,6 +574,7 @@
11 matches
Mail list logo
