On 10/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:09:40PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > But somehow I didn't realize that ___wait_cond_timeout() can be used > > as is, so the simple patch below should work? > > Yeah, should work.. But how often do people use timeout=0?
I do not know. Perhaps never. > Should we > really care about that case to the effect of adding more code. Again, I do not really know. But imo it would be better to fix this anyway, even if the problem is really minor. If nothing else, wait_event_timeout() and __wait_event_timeout() should have the same semantics. And suppose that we ha a helper(timeout) which calls wait_event_timeout(), and checks the non-trivial condition inside. Now suppose that someone does timeout = DEFAULT_TIMEOUT; if (option_nonblock) timeout = 0; ok = helper(timeout); So do you think we should ignore this or I should send 7/6 with the changelog ? (In fact I am going to send another patch on top of this series later. At least, try to send for discussion because I know you dislike the idea to move the signal-pending checks out of line). Oleg. -- 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/