generic sleeping locks?
Allow me to display my ignorance a moment.
Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the kernel?
It just seems that
while( lockvar )
sleep_on( &lockwaitq );
along with its various permutations would be commonly used and worthy of being made into a generic sleep lock. A few blind greps through the source didn't find anything that caught my eye.
If there aren't, would a patch to add them be of interest to anyone? Input on design details welcome.
TIA,
Eli
--------------------. "To the systems programmer, users and applications
Eli Carter | serve only to provide a test load."
[email protected] `---------------------------------- (random fortune) -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 2 lines
Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the kernel?
down and up are normally appropriate for this
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 5 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 3 lines
Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the kernel?
down and up are normally appropriate for this
Ungh. Forest. Trees. *sigh* Sorry for the dumb question. Thanks for the reply Alan. :)
Ok, second part of the question: What about blocking read/write locks (with _interruptible variants)?
TIA,
Eli
--------------------. "To the systems programmer, users and applications
Eli Carter | serve only to provide a test load."
[email protected] `---------------------------------- (random fortune) -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
In message <[email protected]> you write:
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 3 lines
Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the kernel?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
down and up are normally appropriate for this
Ungh. Forest. Trees. *sigh* Sorry for the dumb question. Thanks for the reply Alan. :)
Ok, second part of the question: What about blocking read/write locks (with
_interruptiblevariants)?
Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking*
Rusty.
--
Hacking time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 12 lines · Rusty Russell
In message <[email protected]> you write:
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 5 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 3 lines
Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the kernel?
down and up are normally appropriate for this
Ungh. Forest. Trees. *sigh* Sorry for the dumb question. Thanks for the reply Alan. :)
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Ok, second part of the question: What about blocking read/write locks (with
_interruptiblevariants)?
Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking*Rusty.
--
Hacking time.
Perhaps I should have specified that I'm working with 2.2.xy.... I'll d/l a 2.4.0-test and look at the docbook in that. Thanks for the pointer.
Eli
--------------------. "To the systems programmer, users and applications
Eli Carter | serve only to provide a test load."
[email protected] `---------------------------------- (random fortune) -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/