Arjan van de Ven:
> what do you do if the trylock fails?
Just do not read the status variable now but modify the timer to run later.
> to be honest, the scenario describe really smells of broken locking, in
> fact it really sounds like it wants to use spinlocks instead
No, I don't think it is broken.
Spinlocks can be used, but I don't see them being obviously better in all cases.
If access takes a long time, it is better to sleep during it.
And if you sleep, you might just end up creating a new mutex implementation with a spinlock.
Alan Cox:
> 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.
In the scenario I presented, the timer modifies itself to run later.
Therefore, simply calling del_timer_sync is not enough but you have to set an atomic variable to prevent the timer from adding itself again.
Again, you end up creating a new mutex implementation, which is not good.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Clever - Der einfachste Weg, Fragen zu stellen und Wissenswertes mit Anderen zu teilen. www.yahoo.de/clever
-
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]
