Nish Aravamudan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > - /* Send me a signal to get me die (for debugging) */
> > do {
> > hub_events();
> > - wait_event_interruptible(khubd_wait, !list_empty(&hub_event_list));
> > + wait_event_interruptible(khubd_wait,
> > + !list_empty(&hub_event_list) ||
> > + kthread_should_stop());
> > try_to_freeze(PF_FREEZE);
> > - } while (!signal_pending(current));
> > + } while (!kthread_should_stop() || !list_empty(&hub_event_list));
>
> Shouldn't this simply be a wait_event(), instead of
> wait_event_interruptible()?
That would cause uninterruptible sleep, which contributes to load average.
> Then the do-while() can be gotten rid of,
> as the only reason it is there currently, I guess, is to ignore
> signals?
Nope, the do-while is a basic part of the daemon's operation: keep doing
stuff until either there's no stuff to do or until we're told to exit.
> Also, the while's conditional should be (!kthread_should_stop() ||
> list_empty(&hub_event_list) to match the negation of wait_event's?
> (wait_event() expects the condition to stop on, while while() expects
> the condition to continue on)
Nope, the wait_event_interruptible test says
"sleep unless the list is not empty or I am being asked to exit"
the while termination test says
"loop until the list is empty and I am being asked to stop".
I think. I had to scratch my head for a while over that code ;)
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
