On Friday 27 July 2007 16:12, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:43:59 +0200 > Michael Buesch <mb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Sure, but why is the locking interruptible rather than plain old > > > mutex_lock()? > > > > Hm, well. We hold this mutex for several seconds, as writing takes > > this long. So I simply thought it was worth allowing the waiter > > to interrupt here. If you say that's not an issue, I'll be happy > > to use mutex_lock() and reduce code complexity in this area. > > So.. is that what the _interruptible() is for? To allow an impatient user to ^c > a read? > > If so, that sounds reasonable. It's worth a comment explaining these decisions > to future readers, because it is hard to work out this sort of thinking just > from the bare C code. I think most of sysfs ->show() and ->store() implementations use _interruptible() variant to allow user to interrupt and return early. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
