[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3633.1367497784@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 13:29:44 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout()
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com> wrote:
> Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
> elapses. However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed. If the wake-up
> handler is delayed enough, the time remaining until timeout will be
> calculated as 0 - and passed back as a return value - even if the
> condition became true before the timeout has passed.
>
> Fix this by returning at least 1 if the condition becomes true. This
> semantic is in line with what wait_for_condition_timeout() does; see
> commit bb10ed09 - "sched: fix wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious
> failure under heavy load".
>
> Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
--
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