From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Yusuke Goda <yusuke.goda.sx@renesas.com>
Cc: ben@decadent.org.uk, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] MMC:Add support MMCIF for SuperH
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:17:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100427221705.1628375b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BD7C240.5050800@renesas.com>
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:06:08 +0900 Yusuke Goda <yusuke.goda.sx@renesas.com> wrote:
> + time = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(host->intr_wait,
> + host->wait_int == 1 ||
> + host->sd_error == 1, host->timeout);
> + if (host->wait_int != 1 && (time == 0 || host->sd_error != 0))
> + return sh_mmcif_error_manage(host);
wait_event_interruptible_timeout() will return early with -ERESTARTSYS
if the calling process gets signalled (eg, ^C was hit).
The driver uses wait_event_interruptible_timeout() rather a lot and the
two sites I looked at seem to handle the signal_pending() case
correctly.
But incorrectly handling signals with interruptible waits is a
frequently-occurring error in drivers. Did you deliberately cater for
this case, and have you runtime tested it?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Yusuke Goda <yusuke.goda.sx@renesas.com>
Cc: ben@decadent.org.uk, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] MMC:Add support MMCIF for SuperH
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:17:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100427221705.1628375b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BD7C240.5050800@renesas.com>
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:06:08 +0900 Yusuke Goda <yusuke.goda.sx@renesas.com> wrote:
> + time = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(host->intr_wait,
> + host->wait_int = 1 ||
> + host->sd_error = 1, host->timeout);
> + if (host->wait_int != 1 && (time = 0 || host->sd_error != 0))
> + return sh_mmcif_error_manage(host);
wait_event_interruptible_timeout() will return early with -ERESTARTSYS
if the calling process gets signalled (eg, ^C was hit).
The driver uses wait_event_interruptible_timeout() rather a lot and the
two sites I looked at seem to handle the signal_pending() case
correctly.
But incorrectly handling signals with interruptible waits is a
frequently-occurring error in drivers. Did you deliberately cater for
this case, and have you runtime tested it?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-28 2:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-28 5:06 [PATCH 1/2 v2] MMC:Add support MMCIF for SuperH Yusuke Goda
2010-04-28 5:06 ` Yusuke Goda
2010-04-28 2:17 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-04-28 2:17 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-30 3:51 ` Magnus Damm
2010-04-30 3:51 ` Magnus Damm
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=20100427221705.1628375b.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yusuke.goda.sx@renesas.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.