Re: test9pre6 usb-storage

2000-09-25 Thread John Levon
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Matthew Dharm wrote: > I'm the usb-storage maintainer. Yes, I realize that there is really no > need to reset the state to TASK_RUNNING, but I felt better having those > there. Considering that code is from the reset routines which almost never > get called, I figured it wa

Re: test9pre6 usb-storage

2000-09-24 Thread Alan Cox
> there. Considering that code is from the reset routines which almost never > get called, I figured it was fine. It probably is in that case - although there are others were a task might get put to sleep and mistakenly wake itself up doing thjat. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: test9pre6 usb-storage

2000-09-24 Thread Matthew Dharm
I'm the usb-storage maintainer. Yes, I realize that there is really no need to reset the state to TASK_RUNNING, but I felt better having those there. Considering that code is from the reset routines which almost never get called, I figured it was fine. Matt On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 03:55:34PM +

test9pre6 usb-storage

2000-09-24 Thread John Levon
These chunks : /* long wait for reset */ + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); schedule_timeout(HZ*6); + set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);