On 4/22/05, Tyler <tyler@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Greg KH wrote: > > > >>> down_interruptible(&sem) ; > >> > >> > >> Why interruptible? > > > > > > Another remark : if you really need to use down_interruptible() (for > > some reason), be sure to check the return value of this function. As the > > name says, when you call this function, you can be interrupted by a > > signal. So, you should not assume that once down_interruptible() as > > returned, you own the corresponding semaphore : you may have been > > interrupted by a signal. > > > > Sincerly, > > > > Thomas > Ok, but in fact I'v no reason to use the interruptible locking > semaphores function. > Thx anyway :) I think its always better to use the down_interruptible() rather than only down() function, as down_interruptible allows the user interference using signals. May I know why you said "I'v no reason to use the interruptible locking semaphores function." -gd -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
