On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:56:37PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > - udelay(10); > + if (signal_pending(current)) > + return -EINTR; If you're going to use _killable instead of _interruptible, this needs to be fatal_signal_pending(). Otherwise the one who owns the lock can be interrupted by _any_ signal while those waiting for the lock can only be interrupted by fatal signals. Which seems daft to me. > - spin_lock_irq(&vpd->lock); > + ret = mutex_lock_killable(&vpd->lock); > + if (ret) > + return ret; What's wrong with the shorter: if (mutex_lock_killable(&vpd->lock)) return -EINTR; ? The actual error is irrelevant here since userspace will never consume it. (I agree with Peter about use of yield()) -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
