linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] time: add wait_interruptible_timeout macro to sleep (w. timeout) until wake

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:04:19 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	DRI <dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] time: add wait_interruptible_timeout macro to sleep
  (w. timeout) until wake_up



On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>
> Following macro is soemthing that seems to work fine for us, but instead
> introducing this to radeon KMS only, I'd like to propose adding this to whole
> wait.h. Do you this it's something we should place there? Can someone take this
> patch for me? Or maybe you find this rather useless and we should keep this
> marco locally?

This does not smell generic to me. In fact, it makes me personally think 
you're doing something wrong in the first place, but maybe it's ok. But in 
case it really is ok, I'd still not put it in a generic header file unless 
you can point to other cases where it really makes sense to do this.

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/