On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:24, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > hmm somehow I find this code scary; we had similar code recently > elsewhere where this turned out to be a real issue; you now sleep for > "1" time, so you sleep for a fixed time if you aren't getting wakeups, > but if you are getting wakeups your code is upside down, I would expect > it to look like > > + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > + while (DRV(tty->driver)->chars_in_buffer(tty)) > + schedule_timeout(1); > + if (signal_pending(current)) > + break; > + if (timeout && time_after(jiffies, orig_jiffies + timeout)) > + break; > + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > + } > > instead, so that you don't have the wakeup race.. There's no wakeup signal, so no possibility of a wakeup race. That's why we schedule_timeout() instead of wait_event() or similar. This code is only used to flush the console when the kernel crashes, so we can get the full oops, so waiting a little bit too long is acceptable. Your suggested change is perhaps more idiomatic though, and less jarring for reviewers. :-) Thanks for your comments by the way. Reviewing lots of patches isn't much fun. -- Keir
