Hello, Okash Khawaja, on jeu. 30 mars 2017 15:45:08 +0100, wrote: > - in spk_ttyio_in: > - countdown for SPK_SERIAL_TIMEOUT usecs - similar to > spk_serial_in - and check for atomic_read(&buf_free) == 0 Such busy polling will be way less acceptable than down_timeout :) And all the more so since it does not actually try to give CPU to the part of the kernel which will provide the character, while down_timeout exactly does that. > seems to be a somewhat less acceptance for timeout while acquiring > locks. For example in case of mutex_lock_timeout: > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0611.3/0254.html. Here we are not acquiring a lock: the down_timeout call is used to try to consume a character, that's a very different thing than a mutex_lock_timeout, which is indeed a very questionable thing. Samuel _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
