Message-ID: <425E190E.6000809@labs.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:17:34 +0900
From: tsuchiya yoshihiro <yt@labs.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: arjanv@redhat.com, yt@labs.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: SLEEP_ON_BKLCHECK
References: <425DBC76.60804@labs.fujitsu.com> <1113461190.6293.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
In-Reply-To: <1113461190.6293.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1188
Lines: 38

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 09:42 +0900, tsuchiya yoshihiro wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>In Fedora Core3, interruptible_sleep_on() checks if the system is
>>lock_kernel()'ed
>>by SLEEP_ON_BKLCHECK. Same thing is done in RedHatEL4.
>>Also I found a patch including SLEEP_ON_BKLCHECK was posted before,
>>but is not included in 2.6.11.
>>Why SLEEP_ON_BKLCHECK checks lock_kernel ?
>>    
>>
>
>Because you really need to hold the BKL when you call sleep_on() family
>of APIs, otherwise you have a very big race.
>
>Also note that you in your code really should not call any of the
>sleep_on() family of functions at all! It is a very very deprecated and
>defective API!!!!
>
>  
>
Oh, I did not know that.
What do you use instead? I found wait_event. Is that what you use?

Actually, I am porting my friend's code that runs on 2.4.X to 2.6.
How is sleep_on in 2.4? You should not use sleep_on in 2.4 also?

Thank you,
Yoshi Tsuchiya

-
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/