Nish Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - /* Send me a signal to get me die (for debugging) */
> > do {
> > hub_events();
> > - wait_event_interruptible(khubd_wait,
> > !list_empty(&hub_event_list));
> > + wait_event_interruptible(khubd_wait,
> > + !list_empty(&hub_event_list) ||
> > + kthread_should_stop());
> > try_to_freeze(PF_FREEZE);
> > - } while (!signal_pending(current));
> > + } while (!kthread_should_stop() || !list_empty(&hub_event_list));
>
> Shouldn't this simply be a wait_event(), instead of
> wait_event_interruptible()?
That would cause uninterruptible sleep, which contributes to load average.
> Then the do-while() can be gotten rid of,
> as the only reason it is there currently, I guess, is to ignore
> signals?
Nope, the do-while is a basic part of the daemon's operation: keep doing
stuff until either there's no stuff to do or until we're told to exit.
> Also, the while's conditional should be (!kthread_should_stop() ||
> list_empty(&hub_event_list) to match the negation of wait_event's?
> (wait_event() expects the condition to stop on, while while() expects
> the condition to continue on)
Nope, the wait_event_interruptible test says
"sleep unless the list is not empty or I am being asked to exit"
the while termination test says
"loop until the list is empty and I am being asked to stop".
I think. I had to scratch my head for a while over that code ;)
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.
Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4
opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to
win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
