Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:40:12 +0100 (MET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: wait_event_interruptible() seems non-atomic |
| |
>>>For example the use of down_interruptible() looks wrong to me, I'd use >>>plain down(). >> >>I'd like to be able to hit Ctrl+C (in the userspace application) whenever >>possible. If that's not a reason, blame the book >>http://www.xml.com/ldd/chapter/book/ch03.html#t8 ("the read method" a further >>down below) > >You have already written the code, so I'd leave it as it is and I'll >blame the book. They probably started from an older version of >fs/pipe.c, which contained _interruptible calls. There are gone now, >this allowed some cleanup.
Well, it's just one line so I would not care, and I'm also open for suggestions. Does down_interruptible() cost so much more in CPU cycles than down()?
Jan Engelhardt -- Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung Am Fassberg, 37077 Göttingen, www.gwdg.de - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |