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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:12:49 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
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 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?

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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists