[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070524211737.daa3c99c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:17:37 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make prepare_namespace() wait for devices
On Fri, 25 May 2007 06:03:54 +0200 Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:21:35 +0200
> > Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> + /* wait for any asynchronous scanning to complete */
> >> + if ((ROOT_DEV == 0) && root_wait) {
> >> + printk(KERN_INFO "Waiting for root device %s...\n",
> >> + saved_root_name);
> >> + do {
> >> + while (driver_probe_done() != 0)
> >> + msleep(100);
> >> + ROOT_DEV = name_to_dev_t(saved_root_name);
> >> + if (ROOT_DEV == 0)
> >> + msleep(100);
> >> + } while (ROOT_DEV == 0);
> >> + }
> >>
> >
> > This seems overly complex. Can't we simply do
> >
> >
> > while (driver_probe_done() || ROOT_DEV == 0)
> > msleep(100);
> >
> > ?
> >
>
> How would ROOT_DEV get updated in that loop?
>
Whatever. I think you can work it out ;)
while (driver_probe_done() || (ROOT_DEV = name_to_dev_t(...)) == 0)
perhaps?
The loop-which-sleeps within a loop-which-sleeps seems poorly thought out?
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists