From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge the Sonics Silicon Backplane subsystem
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:28:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200707272228.02152.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070727131249.74330a3d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Friday 27 July 2007 22:12:49 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?
Yeah, I thought so.
> 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.
Ok, no problem.
--
Greetings Michael.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Buesch <mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
bcm43xx-dev-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge the Sonics Silicon Backplane subsystem
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:28:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200707272228.02152.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070727131249.74330a3d.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
On Friday 27 July 2007 22:12:49 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:43:59 +0200
> Michael Buesch <mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> 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?
Yeah, I thought so.
> 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.
Ok, no problem.
--
Greetings Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-27 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-27 16:57 [PATCH] Merge the Sonics Silicon Backplane subsystem Michael Buesch
2007-07-27 16:57 ` Michael Buesch
2007-07-27 19:03 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-27 19:03 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-27 19:30 ` Michael Buesch
2007-07-27 19:30 ` Michael Buesch
2007-07-27 19:38 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-27 19:38 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-27 19:43 ` Michael Buesch
2007-07-27 19:43 ` Michael Buesch
2007-07-27 20:12 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-27 20:12 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-27 20:28 ` Michael Buesch [this message]
2007-07-27 20:28 ` Michael Buesch
2007-07-29 4:45 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-07-27 19:21 ` John W. Linville
2007-07-27 19:21 ` John W. Linville
2007-07-27 19:39 ` Michael Buesch
2007-08-02 13:58 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2007-08-02 14:24 ` Michael Buesch
2007-08-02 14:24 ` Michael Buesch
2007-08-02 16:12 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2007-08-02 16:18 ` Michael Buesch
2007-08-02 16:18 ` Michael Buesch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200707272228.02152.mb@bu3sch.de \
--to=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zambrano@broadcom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.