generic sleeping locks?

generic sleeping locks?

[Eli Carter]

Allow me to display my ignorance a moment.

Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the
kernel?

It just seems that 

while( lockvar )
	sleep_on( &lockwaitq );

along with its various permutations would be commonly used and worthy of
being made into a generic sleep lock.  A few blind greps through the
source didn't find anything that caught my eye.

If there aren't, would a patch to add them be of interest to anyone? 
Input on design details welcome.

TIA,

Eli 
--------------------. "To the systems programmer, users and applications
Eli Carter          | serve only to provide a test load."
eli.carter@inet.com `---------------------------------- (random fortune)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: generic sleeping locks?

[Alan Cox]

> Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the
> kernel?

down and up are normally appropriate for this

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: generic sleeping locks?

[Eli Carter]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the
> > kernel?
> 
> down and up are normally appropriate for this

Ungh.  Forest.  Trees.  *sigh*  Sorry for the dumb question.  
Thanks for the reply Alan.  :)

Ok, second part of the question:  What about blocking read/write locks
(with _interruptible variants)?

TIA,

Eli
--------------------. "To the systems programmer, users and applications
Eli Carter          | serve only to provide a test load."
eli.carter@inet.com `---------------------------------- (random fortune)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: generic sleeping locks?

[Rusty Russell]

In message <3A3E98E9.F68BC13A@inet.com> you write:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > > Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the
> > > kernel?
> > 
> > down and up are normally appropriate for this
> 
> Ungh.  Forest.  Trees.  *sigh*  Sorry for the dumb question.  
> Thanks for the reply Alan.  :)
> 
> Ok, second part of the question:  What about blocking read/write locks
> (with _interruptible variants)?

Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking*

Rusty.
--
Hacking time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: generic sleeping locks?

[Eli Carter]

Rusty Russell wrote:
> 
> In message <3A3E98E9.F68BC13A@inet.com> you write:
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the
> > > > kernel?
> > >
> > > down and up are normally appropriate for this
> >
> > Ungh.  Forest.  Trees.  *sigh*  Sorry for the dumb question.
> > Thanks for the reply Alan.  :)
> >
> > Ok, second part of the question:  What about blocking read/write locks
> > (with _interruptible variants)?
> 
> Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking*
> 
> Rusty.
> --
> Hacking time.

Perhaps I should have specified that I'm working with 2.2.xy....
I'll d/l a 2.4.0-test and look at the docbook in that.  Thanks for the
pointer.

Eli 
--------------------. "To the systems programmer, users and applications
Eli Carter          | serve only to provide a test load."
eli.carter@inet.com `---------------------------------- (random fortune)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/