From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge the Sonics Silicon Backplane subsystem
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:28:01 +0200
Cc: "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	Gary Zambrano <zambrano@broadcom.com>
References: <200707271857.24162.mb@bu3sch.de> <200707272143.59551.mb@bu3sch.de> <20070727131249.74330a3d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070727131249.74330a3d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-Id: <200707272228.02152.mb@bu3sch.de>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Friday 27 July 2007 22:12:49 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:43:59 +0200
> Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:
> 
> > > Sure, but why is the locking interruptible rather than plain old
> > > mutex_lock()?
> > 
> > Hm, well. We hold this mutex for several seconds, as writing takes
> > this long. So I simply thought it was worth allowing the waiter
> > to interrupt here. If you say that's not an issue, I'll be happy
> > to use mutex_lock() and reduce code complexity in this area.
> 
> So..  is that what the _interruptible() is for?  To allow an impatient user to ^c
> a read?

Yeah, I thought so.

> If so, that sounds reasonable.  It's worth a comment explaining these decisions
> to future readers, because it is hard to work out this sort of thinking just
> from the bare C code.

Ok, no problem.


-- 
Greetings Michael.