On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > as i understand it, schedule_timeout() should always be called with > > a current->state of TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, no? > > No. > > Yes, it is pointless to call schedule() if it is known that ->state == > TASK_RUNNING, but sometimes the task doesn't know its state when it > calls schedule/schedule_timeout, the state could be changed by > try_to_wake_up(). > > See wait_event_timeout() as an example.
fair enough. i already knew that, technically, it wasn't an error to call schedule_timeout() with state == TASK_RUNNING. i was just following up on something out of love's kernel book, and i got curious as to whether the above ever happened. now i know. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
