[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: volatile variable
At 10:06 AM 8/11/2003 -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 12:38, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > > First, there are already procedures available to do just
> > > what you seem to want to do, interruptible_sleep_on() and
> > > interruptible_sleep_on_timeout(). These take care of the
> > > ugly details that can trip up compilers.
> >
> > Just in case there are people reading this who don't realise that
> > Richard is trolling -- do not ever use sleep_on() and friends. They
> > _will_ introduce bugs, and hence they _will_ be removed from the kernel
> > some time in the (hopefully not-so-distant) future.
> >
>The linux-2.4.20 contains 516 references to "sleep_on" in the
>`drivers` tree. This is hardly a function or macro that will
>be removed. If there are bugs, they will be fixed, not removed.

They've been declared dead since (grep 'DO NOT use them' patch*)
2.5.48. See include/linux/wait.h for details.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.087 / U:0.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site