Hi,
is there some deeper reason that there's no macro for waiting
uninterruptablely with a timeout? Or did just nobody feel a need
as yet?
Regards
Oliver
--- 1.7/include/linux/wait.h Sun Nov 17 12:30:14 2002
+++ edited/include/linux/wait.h Thu Mar 20 21:57:52 2003
@@ -173,6 +173,32 @@
__ret; \
})
+#define __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, ret) \
+do { \
+ wait_queue_t __wait; \
+ init_waitqueue_entry(&__wait, current); \
+ \
+ add_wait_queue(&wq, &__wait); \
+ for (;;) { \
+ set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); \
+ if (condition) \
+ break; \
+ ret = schedule_timeout(ret); \
+ if (!ret) \
+ break; \
+ } \
+ current->state = TASK_RUNNING; \
+ remove_wait_queue(&wq, &__wait); \
+} while (0)
+
+#define wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \
+({ \
+ long __ret = timeout; \
+ if (!(condition)) \
+ __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, __ret); \
+ __ret; \
+})
+
#define __wait_event_interruptible_timeout(wq, condition, ret) \
do { \
wait_queue_t __wait; \
Am Freitag, 21. M?rz 2003 07:52 schrieb David Brownell:
> > is there some deeper reason that there's no macro for waiting
> > uninterruptablely with a timeout? Or did just nobody feel a need
> > as yet?
>
> Those macros seem to have moved out of <linux/sched.h> (2.4)
> and wait_event_interruptible_timeout() was added about 6
> months ago; the changelog entry says it was for smbfs.
> So I'd guess "no need yet".
>
> Here's an updated version of your patch, now using the same
> calling convention that the other two "can return 'early'"
> calls there provide. It's behaved in my testing, to replace the
> chaos in the usb synchronous call wrappers.
Much better than my version.
Regards
Oliver