lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Merge the Sonics Silicon Backplane subsystem
Date
On Friday 27 July 2007 16:12, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:43:59 +0200
> Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.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.

I think most of sysfs ->show() and ->store() implementations use
_interruptible() variant to allow user to interrupt and return early.

--
Dmitry
-
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: 2007-07-29 06:47    [W:0.041 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site