Re: wait_event_interruptible() seems non-atomic

[Jan Engelhardt]

>>Well, it's just one line so I would not care, and I'm also open for
>>suggestions. Does down_interruptible() cost so much more in CPU cycles than
>>down()?
>
>It's more about code complexity than performance. down_interruptible()
>means that you must handle failures - double check that you free all
>temporary allocations, decrease all reference counts (make the reference
>counts atomic_t), etc.

All considered. rpldev.c only has 4 occurrences of down_interruptible, all
which are near the start of the function body. There's nothing to deallocate at
the time down_interruptible() is due ;-)



Jan Engelhardt
-- 
Gesellschaft fÃr Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung
Am Fassberg, 37077 GÃttingen, www.gwdg.de
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/