Re: question about code from the linux kernel development ( se ) book

[Yitzchak Eidus <ieidus@gmail.com>]

First Steve I want to thanks you for answering me
your answered all the questions that i had
I can understand your complains , and i will try to make it better
next time ( i almost never used mailing lists... , so sorry about the
white space striping , and the spelling... )

Jesper - yes it was a typo

Nick - thanks :)

On 10/21/05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> Oh God, please indent code examples, and if your email client strips white
> space, change your email client.
>
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Yitzchak Eidus wrote:
>
> > first i am very sorry if it isnt the place to ask questions like this
> > but i didnt know where else to ask ( i tryed irc channels and i was
> > send from there to this list )
> > anyway:
> > does this following code look buggy? :
>
> [ Indention added ]
>
> > DECLARE_WAITQUEUE ( wait , current );
> > add_wait_queue ( q , &wait );
> > while ( !condition ) {
> >         set_current_stat ( TASK_INTERRUPTABLE ); i
> >         if ( signal_pending ( current ) )
> >                 /* handle signal */
>
> I assume that the signal_pending is the if result and not the schedule.
> Since there was no indentation I couldn't tell.
>
> >         schedule ( );
> /* Moved brace down added */
>  }
> > set_current_state ( TASK_RUNNING );
> > remove_wait_queue ( q , &wait );
>
> Before I go to your questions, I'll first answer that this _is_ buggy
> code.  If the condition is checked and you are woken up between the
> while (!condition) and the set_current_state, then you will end up
> sleeping forever or until someone sends you a signal.
>
> > first:doesnt in the way from checking the !condition to
> > set_current_state  the condition can be changed no?
>
> Yes, and then put it again after schedule.
>
> >
> > second:why not putting the schedule ( ); right after the
> > set_current_state ( ) , what the point in checking the if (
> > signal_pending ( ) first, if the proccess doesnt started to sleep yet?
>
> Yes, I would put the signal_pending check after the schedule (as most of
> the kernel does this).
>
> > third: in the cleaning in the way from putting the set_current_state (
> > TASK_RUNNING ) into remove_wait_queue , cant the queue wait list ( q )
> > wake up again the wait procsess?
>
> Yeah, so?  There's no harm in that, except for an extra cpu cycles that
> are done to wake it up.  That, I wouldn't change.
>
> > ( thnks for the help , please if it can be done answer quickly i am
> > tanker in the idf and need to come back to the army soon , ( no
> > internet there... ) )
>
> BTW, this is not an IRC, we use normal capitalization and normal spelling
> (when we know how to spell a word ;-).  So the next time you send to the
> list, send it as if you were writing a serious letter, or you may just be
> ignored. (as you might have been if I didn't respond).
>
> -- Steve
>
-
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/