Hi Tejun,
On 06/05, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Heh, yeah, this looks good to me and a lot better than trying to do
> the same thing over and over again and ending up with subtle
> differences.
Yes, this is the goal. Of course we could fix wait_event_timout() and
wait_event_interruptible_timeout() witho
Hello, Oleg.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:07:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> And in fact, perhaps we can implement wait_event_common() and avoid the
> code duplications?
>
> #define __wait_no_timeout(timeout) \
> (__builtin_constant_p(timeout) && (timeout) ==
> MAX_SCHE
On 06/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I think that wait_eveint_timeout(wq, COND, 0) should return !!(COND).
> But it doesn't, for example wait_event_timeout(wq, true, 0) == 0, this
> doesn'tlook right to me.
>
> And, this is off-topic, but wait_eveint_timeout/__wait_eveint_timeout
> do not match wait_
On 06/05, Imre Deak wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 00:35 +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 21:28 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we also change wait_event_timeout() ? Say,
> > >
> > > #define wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout)
> >
On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 00:35 +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 21:28 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Just noticed this commit...
> >
> > commit 4c663cfc523a88d97a8309b04a089c27dc57fd7e
> > Author: Imre Deak
> > Date: Fri May 24 15:55:09 2013 -0700
> >
> > Many
On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 21:28 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just noticed this commit...
>
> commit 4c663cfc523a88d97a8309b04a089c27dc57fd7e
> Author: Imre Deak
> Date: Fri May 24 15:55:09 2013 -0700
>
> Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> wait_event_interruptible_t
Hello,
Just noticed this commit...
commit 4c663cfc523a88d97a8309b04a089c27dc57fd7e
Author: Imre Deak
Date: Fri May 24 15:55:09 2013 -0700
Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
positive if the specified
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 16:12 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 11:36:56 +0200 Daniel Vetter
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> > > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value wil
On Thu, 2 May 2013 11:36:56 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> > Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> > positive if the specified condition becomes true before the
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:35 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, May 02 2013, David Howells wrote:
> > Imre Deak wrote:
> >
> > > Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> > > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> > > positive if the specified condition beco
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:54 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Thu, May 02 2013, Imre Deak wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:23 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> > > On Thu, May 02 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Davi
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:54 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, May 02 2013, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:23 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 02 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Howells
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Fix this by return
On Thu, May 02 2013, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:23 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Howells
> > > wrote:
> > > >> Fix this by returning at least 1 if the condition becomes true. This
> > > >> seman
On Thu, May 02 2013, David Howells wrote:
> Imre Deak wrote:
>
> > Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> > positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
> > elapses. However, at the moment t
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:23 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, May 02 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Howells wrote:
> > >> Fix this by returning at least 1 if the condition becomes true. This
> > >> semantic is in line with what wait_for_condition_timeout() d
Imre Deak wrote:
> Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
> elapses. However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed. If the wake-up
> handler is dela
Jens Axboe wrote:
> IMHO, the change definitely makes sense.
Yeah... I think I agree.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please
On Thu, May 02 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Howells wrote:
> >> Fix this by returning at least 1 if the condition becomes true. This
> >> semantic is in line with what wait_for_condition_timeout() does; see
> >> commit bb10ed09 - "sched: fix wait_for_completi
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Howells wrote:
>> Fix this by returning at least 1 if the condition becomes true. This
>> semantic is in line with what wait_for_condition_timeout() does; see
>> commit bb10ed09 - "sched: fix wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious
>> failure under heavy load"
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 11:29 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Imre Deak wrote:
>
> > Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> > positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
> > elapses. However, a
Imre Deak wrote:
> Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
> elapses. However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed. If the wake-up
> handler is dela
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
> elapses. However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed.
22 matches
Mail list logo
