From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:15:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:15:09 -0500 Received: from vena.lwn.net ([206.168.112.25]:20239 "HELO eklektix.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:15:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20010129171459.922.qmail@eklektix.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Kernel Janitor's TODO list (really sleep_on) From: corbet-lk@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:14:59 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Anything which uses sleep_on() has a 90% chance of being broken. Fix > them all, because we want to remove sleep_on() and friends in 2.5. This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask... Suppose you were working on the new edition of the device drivers book, which was just in the process of going out for tech review. You would, of course, have put in a lot of words about the sorts of race conditions that can come about when sleep_on() is used. Is that enough? Or would you omit coverage of those functions in favor of "doing it right" from the beginning? Obviously, I'm thinking about ripping out much of the sleep_on() discussion as a last-minute change. I would be most curious to hear whether people think that would be the right thing to do. Thanks, jon Jonathan Corbet Executive editor, LWN.net corbet@lwn.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/