On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:35 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, May 02 2013, David Howells wrote: > > Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com> 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 delayed enough, the time remaining until timeout will be > > > calculated as 0 - and passed back as a return value - even if the > > > condition became true before the timeout has passed. > > > > > > 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". > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com> > > > > Acked-by: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> > > You can add mine, too: > > Acked-by: Jens Axboe <ax...@kernel.dk>
Ok, I think we agree that the +1 thing in schedule_timeout() discussed in this thread should be handled separately, so if there is no other objection I'd be happy if this patch was merged through someone's tree as-is. --Imre -- 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 read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
