Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:21:47 +0100 (MET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: wait_event_interruptible() seems non-atomic |
| |
>>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()? > >It's more about code complexity than performance. down_interruptible() >means that you must handle failures - double check that you free all >temporary allocations, decrease all reference counts (make the reference >counts atomic_t), etc.
All considered. rpldev.c only has 4 occurrences of down_interruptible, all which are near the start of the function body. There's nothing to deallocate at the time down_interruptible() is due ;-)
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/
| |