[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080905124046.GP2772@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:40:46 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: vpd handle longer delays in access
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:56:37PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> - udelay(10);
> + if (signal_pending(current))
> + return -EINTR;
If you're going to use _killable instead of _interruptible, this needs
to be fatal_signal_pending(). Otherwise the one who owns the lock can
be interrupted by _any_ signal while those waiting for the lock can only
be interrupted by fatal signals. Which seems daft to me.
> - spin_lock_irq(&vpd->lock);
> + ret = mutex_lock_killable(&vpd->lock);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
What's wrong with the shorter:
if (mutex_lock_killable(&vpd->lock))
return -EINTR;
?
The actual error is irrelevant here since userspace will never consume it.
(I agree with Peter about use of yield())
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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