On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:38:38 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > --- old/drivers/usb/input/hiddev.c 2004-03-17 05:02:08.000000000 > > > > -0800 > > > > +++ new/drivers/usb/input/hiddev.c 2005-01-26 11:34:06.399553881 > > > > -0800 > > > > @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ > > > > } > > > > > > > > schedule(); > > > > + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > > > > I thought that after schedule() got called, the state was > > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. Or am I just imagining things? > > I didn't get the original patch, but wouldn't it be better to just > rework this using wait_interruptible()? At least for 2.4 I'm always very conservative. If I start rewriting, it's going to end with regressions. Tried a few times... -- Pete ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
