From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:58:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:58:14 -0400 Received: from twilight.ucw.cz ([195.39.74.230]:31190 "EHLO twilight.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:58:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:00:42 +0200 From: Vojtech Pavlik To: Russell King Cc: Vojtech Pavlik , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxconsole-dev@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [patch] Fix suspend of the kseriod thread Message-ID: <20020731000042.A24349@ucw.cz> References: <20020730122638.A11153@ucw.cz> <20020730122918.A11248@ucw.cz> <20020730152255.A20071@ucw.cz> <20020730152342.B20071@ucw.cz> <20020730221722.A22761@ucw.cz> <20020730225736.K7677@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020730225736.K7677@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>; from rmk@arm.linux.org.uk on Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:57:36PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:57:36PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:17:22PM +0200, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > do { > > serio_handle_events(); > > + interruptible_sleep_on(&serio_wait); > > if (current->flags & PF_FREEZE) > > refrigerator(PF_IOTHREAD); > > - interruptible_sleep_on(&serio_wait); > > } while (!signal_pending(current)); > > Isn't interruptible_sleep_on() taboo? As far as I know it only implies a bug when used with some condition, like "buffer non-empty" etc. As always, I may be wrong, of course. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs