On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:24, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
hmm somehow I find this code scary; we had similar code recently
elsewhere where this turned out to be a real issue; you now sleep for
"1" time, so you sleep for a fixed time if you aren't getting wakeups,
but if you are getting wakeups your code is upside down, I would expect
it to look like
+ set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ while (DRV(tty->driver)->chars_in_buffer(tty))
+ schedule_timeout(1);
+ if (signal_pending(current))
+ break;
+ if (timeout && time_after(jiffies, orig_jiffies + timeout))
+ break;
+ set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ }
instead, so that you don't have the wakeup race..
There's no wakeup signal, so no possibility of a wakeup race. That's
why we schedule_timeout() instead of wait_event() or similar. This code
is only used to flush the console when the kernel crashes, so we can
get the full oops, so waiting a little bit too long is acceptable.
Your suggested change is perhaps more idiomatic though, and less
jarring for reviewers. :-)
Thanks for your comments by the way. Reviewing lots of patches isn't
much fun.
-- Keir
-
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]