-
Nishanth Aravamudan authored
Use ssleep() instead of nicedelay() to guarantee the task delays as expected. Remove the prototype and definition of nicedelay(). This is a very weird function, because it is called to sleep in terms of usecs, but always sleeps for 1 second, completely ignoring the parameter. I have gone ahead and followed suit, just sleeping for a second in all cases, but maybe someone with the hardware could tell me if perhaps the paramter *should* matter. Additionally, nicedelay() is called in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state, but doesn't deal with signals in case these longer delays do not complete, so I believe ssleep() is more appropriate. Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Domen Puncer <domen@coderock.org>
a26c074c