Am Sonntag, 16. Mai 2004 17:40 schrieben Sie:
> 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.
I am in no way ready to dispute that.
But one thing at a time. You cannot convert drivers to
usb_uninterruptible_sleep_ms() before it is in.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
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
