Re: Do not deprecate binary semaphore or do allow mutex in software interrupt contexts

> to be honest, the scenario describe really smells of broken locking, in
> fact it really sounds like it wants to use spinlocks instead 

For polling and timer based code its often simpler to do

	del_timer_sync(&my_timer);
	FrobStuff
	add_timer(&my_timer);

especially if "FrobStuff" is likely to change when you next need to poll.

And don't forget regular polling is a good way to really annoy laptop
users as it burns power

Alan

-
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/

---

• References:
  • Do not deprecate binary semaphore or do allow mutex in software interrupt contexts
    • From: Matti Linnanvuori <[email protected]>
  • Re: Do not deprecate binary semaphore or do allow mutex in software interrupt contexts
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Platform device id
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] v3 of IBM power meter driver
• Previous by thread: Re: Do not deprecate binary semaphore or do allow mutex in software interrupt contexts
• Next by thread: Do not deprecate binary semaphore or do allow mutex in software interrupt contexts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]