![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Middeweken 18 Mai 2005 16:45, Nathan Lynch wrote: > > > A semaphore would also be the wrong approach since we don't want > > processes to block but instead to fail opening the watchdog twice.> > I should have been more explicit. What I had in mind was using > down_trylock and returning -EBUSY if it failed. Well, that's also pointless. If the only operations you ever do on a semaphore are down_trylock() and up(), you end up using only the atomic variable in there while wasting a few bytes of extra memory for storing the wait queue head ;-) Arnd <>< - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-05-18 17:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||