Scott Cheloha writes:
> Given the SCSI_NOSLEEP split here I think the simplest thing we can do > is ask to sleep as much as we delay(9). > > The question is: if you *could* poll in 10us intervals here with > tsleep_nsec(9), would you want to? If so, then this works. If > not, what is a more appropriate interval? > Hi, I believe it would be fine to use the same value as in the delay, "1" was just the smallest available for the tsleep. OK mikeb for the change. Cheers, Mike > Index: pv/xbf.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/pv/xbf.c,v > retrieving revision 1.32 > diff -u -p -r1.32 xbf.c > --- pv/xbf.c 17 Jul 2017 10:30:03 -0000 1.32 > +++ pv/xbf.c 15 Jan 2020 06:20:25 -0000 > @@ -738,7 +738,7 @@ xbf_poll_cmd(struct scsi_xfer *xs) > if (ISSET(xs->flags, SCSI_NOSLEEP)) > delay(10); > else > - tsleep(xs, PRIBIO, "xbfpoll", 1); > + tsleep_nsec(xs, PRIBIO, "xbfpoll", USEC_TO_NSEC(10)); > xbf_intr(xs->sc_link->adapter_softc); > } while(--timo > 0); >
