From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBOYXphcmV3aWN6?= Subject: Re: wake_up_interruptible Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:35:09 +0200 Message-ID: References: <25990.28429.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-reply-to: <25990.28429.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-newbie-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="macroman"; format="flowed delsp=yes" To: Fundu , linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 11 May 2010 22:32:46 +0200, Fundu wrote: > what happen when you call wake_up_interruptible and there are no task= waiting on that wait queue right then. > > But say after some time a task comes along and start waiting (after t= he wake_up_interruptible is called). > Would that task be not wait at all because there was a pending wake u= p It will be waiting for another wake up. > What i'm looking for is a mechanism where by any old wake if not acte= d upon are lost. Semahore may be a good option. --=20 Best regards, _ _ | Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=3D./ `o | Computer Science, Micha=C5=82 "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o) +----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie"= 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.linux-learn.org/faqs