[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa686aa40903120901me307a54y3511f4bafc6242e6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:01:27 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rdreier@...co.com,
jirislaby@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org, will.newton@...il.com,
hancockrwd@...il.com, jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] introduce macro spin_event_timeout()
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
>
>>> The other big advantage of that approach is that drivers that aren't in
>>> an atomic section can use msleep() and allow the kernel to schedule on
>>> that processor.
>>
>> Ack! I totally agree.
>
> I'm glad everyone agrees. I still don't know how to solve the
> problem, though. I came up with this:
>
> #define spin_until_timeout(condition, timeout) \
> for (unsigned long __timeout = jiffies + (timeout); \
> (!(condition) && time_after(jiffies, __timeout)); )
>
> Now how do I modify this so that the caller knows whether the loop
> terminated because of a timeout or the condition became true?
How about this:
#define spin_until_timeout(condition, timeout, rc) \
for (unsigned long __timeout = jiffies + (timeout); \
(!(rc = (condition)) && time_after(jiffies, __timeout)); )
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
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