Message-ID: <41A48FC2.6010701@syncro-community.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:42:26 +0100
From: Hendrik Wiese <7.e.Q@syncro-community.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Davide Rossetti <davide.rossetti@roma1.infn.it>
Cc: LKLM <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Difference wait_event_interruptible and interruptible_wait_on
References: <41A478F2.3080004@syncro-community.de> <41A48CFB.2010304@roma1.infn.it>
In-Reply-To: <41A48CFB.2010304@roma1.infn.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1272
Lines: 34

Davide Rossetti wrote:

> Hendrik Wiese wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm porting a device driver from 2.2.14 to 2.6.7 and I got some 
>> problems doing this...
>>
>> one of them is the following:
>> I know that a call to interruptible_wait_on puts a process into sleep 
>> state and that wait_event_interruptible does the same. But the 
>> difference is that wait_event_interruptible needs a condition to pass 
>> to wake up the processes. I do not need that mechanism since I wake 
>> up the processes at other places inside my driver with 
>> wake_up_interruptible calls. So how do I get a function similar to 
>> interruptible_wait_on where no condition is needed using kernel 2.6?
>
>
> I did not check, so maybe I'm wrong, anyway the condition 
> wait_event_interruptible is used to avoid the race window between the 
> time you decide to call it and the time the process is actually made 
> to sleep and ready to be woken up.
> regards
>
>
Thanks for your reply.

So what should such a condition be? What should be put there?
-
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/