Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:46:28 +0200
From: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rhashtable-test: extend to test concurrency
Mail-Followup-To: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net
References: <1439591835-30357-1-git-send-email-phil@nwl.cc>
 <20150816181234.GC31357@breakpoint.cc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150816181234.GC31357@breakpoint.cc>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Message-Id: <20150816214555.958D121475@mail.nwl.cc>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 998
Lines: 27

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 08:12:35PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> wrote:
> > After having tested insertion, lookup, table walk and removal, spawn a
> > number of threads running operations on the same rhashtable. Each of
> > them will:
> 
> [..]
> 
> > +	if (down_interruptible(&startup_sem))
> > +		pr_err("  thread[%d]: down_interruptible failed\n", tdata->id);
> 
> Why _interruptible?
> 
> Seems this should use down() instead.

According to the comment in kernel/locking/semaphore.c, down() is
deprecated and one should use down_interruptible() or down_killable()
instead. Apart from that, I don't see any problem with using down()
here. If the call fails, the code is pointless if not even broken
anyway.

Cheers, Phil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/