Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Nathan Lynch <nathan.lynch@xxxxxxx> writes: >> Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> My understanding (and testing) is that wait_event_timeout() will block >>> for the duration even in the face of interrupts, 'freezable' will not. >> >> They have different behaviors with respect to *signals* and the >> wake_up() variant used, but not device interrupts. >> > > Ah! That's something that I wasn't considering. That it could be > something other than interrupts that were unblocking wait_event_*(). Well, I doubt it would be a signal in this case. Maybe you've experienced timeouts? >> dmatest_callback() employs wake_up_all(), which means this change >> introduces no beneficial difference in the wakeup behavior. The dmatest >> thread gets woken on receipt of the completion interrupt either way. >> >> And to reiterate, the change regresses the combination of dmatest and >> the task freezer, which is a use case people have cared about, >> apparently. >> > > If this change in behavior causes a regression for others, glad to send > a revert and find another solution. Thanks - yes it should be reverted or dropped IMO.
