Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:27:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:27:11 -0500 Received: from mailrelay1.lrz-muenchen.de ([129.187.254.101]:3563 "EHLO mailrelay1.lrz-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:27:10 -0500 From: Oliver Neukum To: David Brownell Subject: Re: question on macros in wait.h Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:38:02 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <3E7AB696.40204@pacbell.net> In-Reply-To: <3E7AB696.40204@pacbell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303211238.02378.oliver@neukum.name> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 952 Lines: 25 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 (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 - 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/