On Sat, 15 May 2004, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > So there were no calls of wait_ms() made in_interrupt()? I guess that's > > not surprising; busy-waiting is almost never a good idea. > > I hope so. I traced back to the first blocking call. If that was a bug, > there should be busy waiting. > Ready for application?
You know, I bet if you search for "schedule_timeout" you'll find a bunch of places where drivers call it directly, when they should be using usb_uninterruptible_sleep_ms() instead. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest 6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
