On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 10:21:58AM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Thursday 10 February 2005 9:39 am, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > Hi David, LKML, > > > > It came up on IRC that the wait_cond*() functions from > > usb/serial/gadget.c could be useful in other parts of the kernel. Does > > the following patch make sense towards this? > > I know that Al Borchers -- who wrote those -- did so with that > specific notion. And it certainly makes sense to me, in > principle, that such primitives exist in the kernel ... maybe > with some tweaks first. (And docs for all the wait_* calls?)
I would be happy to document all the wait_* callers, especially when which should be used, their correspondence to the other sleep-functions, etc. > But nobody's pressed the issue before, to the relevant audience: > namely, LKML. I'd be interested to hear what other folk think. > Clearly these particular primitives don't understand how to cope > with nested spinlocks, but those are worth avoiding anyway. Yes, I was considering that issue, but I figured let's go for the simple case now and that should be good enough for *most* cases. Thanks for the feedback! -Nish - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
