| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200707272228.02152.mb@bu3sch.de> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:28:01 +0200 From: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bcm43xx-dev@...ts.berlios.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Gary Zambrano <zambrano@...adcom.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge the Sonics Silicon Backplane subsystem On Friday 27 July 2007 22:12:49 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:43:59 +0200 > Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de> wrote: > > > > Sure, but why is the locking interruptible rather than plain old > > > mutex_lock()? > > > > Hm, well. We hold this mutex for several seconds, as writing takes > > this long. So I simply thought it was worth allowing the waiter > > to interrupt here. If you say that's not an issue, I'll be happy > > to use mutex_lock() and reduce code complexity in this area. > > So.. is that what the _interruptible() is for? To allow an impatient user to ^c > a read? Yeah, I thought so. > If so, that sounds reasonable. It's worth a comment explaining these decisions > to future readers, because it is hard to work out this sort of thinking just > from the bare C code. Ok, no problem. -- Greetings Michael. - 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