Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:46:23 -0500 (EST) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | Re: sleep_on, wake_up question |
| |
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> "Richard B. Johnson" wrote: > > > > Mark, > > I checked a later kernel and it can get stuck. However, you can > > use sleep_on_timeout() to make sure you do get awakened. > > Ha? Do you really suggest adding a timeout to recover from the lock-up? > You should _remove_ the lock-up instead of hiding it. > [SNIPPED reasonable code]
Well it's usually not a 'lockup' it's usually what hardware __does__, i.e., fail to interrupt, etc. So my proposal will allow you to work-around the hardware which usually has to be done anyway. It's either 'you missed the interrupt` or 'the interrupt never happened`. Both cases allow you to get control.
Cheers, Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.3.13 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips). Warning : The end of the world as we know it requires a new calendar. Seconds : 119617 (until Y2K)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |